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

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.

There is a fix for that if it bugs you. Here is the link:

Tweakguides.com Fixing Vista Annoyances Page.

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.

Then buy a ATI card and dump the Nvidia. Problem solved.

*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.

Having used computers for more than 23 years, I think i'm more qualified to talk about computer use than you are. I'm very familiar in how to use Windows (including Vista). Agreed it's downright laughable that Vista took 4 hours to fix, but it did. I prefer not to do formats where I can help it, it makes for happier customers. As for a better OS? No, IMO I don't think so.

I doubt XP-M would be able to interact with Win7 in such a way that Malware would affect computers, especially with the security thats present in both O/S today. It'd be mad of MS to allow that sort of access between the two systems.

And that "facepalm" loses most credibility you might had with me. Sorry mate, nothing personal. Or was it? Don't like XP? Point noted. But don't bash other people's abilities when you don't have all the facts. Run my business for a day, and you'll be in a position to comment.

I've been playing with 7 for over six months now, yet I'm back on Vista x64 SP2.

I like the new taskbar and the jump lists. I don't have much use for libraries as I'm quite organised naturally, no use for homegroups and I'm standalone with a router which goes for WMP sharing as well. I don't multitask much either, I'm usally concentrating on one activity at a time.

Don't like WMP12, seems to be a step back from WMP11.

Perormance is all but identical with modern hardware.

I'll probably buy it once available but I wouldn't say it's worth it, will be more out of habit and the placebo effect the computer industry thrives from.

Having used computers for more than 23 years, I think i'm more qualified to talk about computer use than you are. I'm very familiar in how to use Windows (including Vista). Agreed it's downright laughable that Vista took 4 hours to fix, but it did. I prefer not to do formats where I can help it, it makes for happier customers. As for a better OS? No, IMO I don't think so.

I doubt XP-M would be able to interact with Win7 in such a way that Malware would affect computers, especially with the security thats present in both O/S today. It'd be mad of MS to allow that sort of access between the two systems.

And that "facepalm" loses most credibility you might had with me. Sorry mate, nothing personal. Or was it? Don't like XP? Point noted. But don't bash other people's abilities when you don't have all the facts. Run my business for a day, and you'll be in a position to comment.

Is it worth it for Windows Me users to upgrade to XP? You bet!

It's just as much worth it for Windows Me 2.0 users to upgrade to Win7 :yes:

+1 to both of those posts :D

Im on windows 7 now. I purchased Vista Ultimate when it came out - worst mistake of my life. Sure vista has some "pretty-ness" but thats about it. Just to be fair I've tried using it since SP1 and 2, its still a pain. XP does everything I need - and so has win7 so far!

Why do you think MS started working on 7 so quickly?? As far as vista goes, MS has pretty much swept it under the rug.

don't EVER upgrade, do a fresh clean install.

Don't listen to anyone who argues you shouldn't upgrade from Vista RTM to Windows 7 RTM. Microsoft's new (vista+) installation methodology does away with the issues people used to have upgrading from say 98 to XP.

Unfortunately, that outdated FUD is still circling pretty heavily even though it's now about 4 years out of date.

The REAL issue is to make sure you BACK UP before upgrading or doing a clean install...period.

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.

Your entire answer mirrors what I was going to say. Voted Not sure. Vista has been very solid for me. To be honest, I am sort of wary when I hear all this hype about a product. Usually I am let down when I do finally try it.

Don't like WMP12, seems to be a step back from WMP11.

Just out of curiosity... in what way?

There are many features in Windows Media Player 12 which I think make it an improvement over Windows Media Player 11. Some of the little things like where it plays a preview of the song when you hover over it and the fact that the interface is more intuitive.

I'm interested in why you think it is a step backwards? Many people I've heard say it's because of how different the design of the player is compared to the more 'nice-looking' Windows Media Player 11, but I go beyond the design, sometimes, and look at the features.

Just out of curiosity... in what way?

There are many features in Windows Media Player 12 which I think make it an improvement over Windows Media Player 11. Some of the little things like where it plays a preview of the song when you hover over it and the fact that the interface is more intuitive.

I'm interested in why you think it is a step backwards? Many people I've heard say it's because of how different the design of the player is compared to the more 'nice-looking' Windows Media Player 11, but I go beyond the design, sometimes, and look at the features.

Hmm, well for starters I use 64 bit WMP in Vista. As to why, well by installing 64 bit codec pack I don't mess up anything that runs @32 bit and in turn no 32 bit players interfere with WMP. It's a little sandbox in a way if you make WMP your main media tool as there should be no other 64 bit codecs or players about. Can't find a way to set WMP12 x64 as default in 7 as yet, which is a shame. Yeah I know 7 has it's Codecs locked down if you will, but I have stuff it won't play and also need filters to handle subtitles and such, so I have to install some codecs. Doing this on x64 has meant since day 1 I've been able to play everything I need and never had a problem, it's proven reliability for me.

Navigation in 12 seems to be all over the place, in 11 I have immediate access to everything and I stay in library view. 12 has incorportated tabs for what I can see as no good reason. In 11, in library view I can just right click the menu bar, select view and view anything anywhere. In 12, say if I wanted to open the equaliser, I have to switch tabs and it's still buried away even then.

I don't think 12 is aesthetically pleasing as 11 either. The tabs look horribly out of place and instead of intuative controls things are starting to sprawl off in every direction.

It's not as pleasant to use as 11 either, I just don't like it. I'll be sticking to 11 for as long as I can.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!