Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Windows Vista: Should I wait for Windows 7 or move on to Vista now?
- 1/16/09 4:11 PM
DDR3 is not worth waiting for
by Brons2 - 1/17/09 3:58 AM In reply to: I would wait!!! by atlmann10It will not offer a substantial performance increase over DDR2 for your average everyday user.
And the new CPU's you refer to, the Core i7 and the Phenom II, have already been released prior to CES.
Nevertheless I do recommend waiting for Win7 if your current machine can hold out. If not Vista 32bit is good with 3GB of RAM
Vista or wait for Windows 7
by shrekerette - 1/9/09 8:40 PM In reply to: Should I wait for Windows 7 or move on to Vista now? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi. I just want to say that my experience and my whole families experience with Vista has not been good. There are still so many bugs in it and it is very annoying when you click to download something and it keeps asking for your permission to continue. Have you ever seen the commercial on TV about Pc and Mac? Well if you have you will know what I mean. If you are forced to get a new one and can't wait I would get Windows XP. I and many other people I know have Xp and we have had no problems with it once you set everything the way you want it to be. So all I can say is good luck on your decision making. Xp will still be around for another few years anyways.
Windows 7?
by msgale - 1/9/09 9:13 PM In reply to: Vista or wait for Windows 7 by shrekeretteI doubt that a seven year old PC will run either Vista or Windows 7 effectively, if at all. Typical memory was one gigabyte or less, multicore processors did not exist and clocks were slower, video ram was small by todays standards, and disks were 5400 RPM with a IDE/PATA and probably less than 100 giga bytes
I'm running it on a 5 year old system
by Brons2 - 1/17/09 3:20 AM In reply to: Windows 7? by msgaleAthlon XP 3000+ (the 333 mhz bus one, not the 400)
ECS K7VTA3 ver 8.0 cheapie motherboard. I got this thing with a Duron 1600 at Fry's for $34 and then upgraded it to a 3000+ a year later. The board has a Via KT333 chipset which is much slower as compared to the Nforce chipsets on the Athlon XP.
1GB Kingston Value RAM DDR 333 (2x512)
80 GB Maxtor PATA/133 7200RPM HDD model 6Y080P0
GeForce3 Ti200 (I'm going to pick up an FX5200 locally for $15 so I can run Aero)
It's not the fastest but then it wasn't that fast running XP either.
Permissions to install
by wayneepalmer - 1/10/09 12:44 PM In reply to: Vista or wait for Windows 7 by shrekeretteThere's a way to get rid of that darned "permissions" thing.
Go to "Control Panel" open "Security Center", open the 4th option "Other Security Settings", Turn off "User Account Control".
You will get a "security" notice about this every time you turn your pc on (I'm sure there's a way to stop that, too but I haven't bothered with it).
No!
by 3rdalbum - 1/17/09 1:38 AM In reply to: Permissions to install by wayneepalmerNO! Do NOT tell people how to turn off User Account Control! Microsoft implemented it *for a reason* - there were too many security problems being caused by the user account also being the administrator, so Vista now causes the user account to be a limited user account, with the ability to "elevate" to administrator when needed.
Seriously, folks. Unix has had this sort of security model since the 1960s, and now every other major operating system (and many obscure ones) use this very sensible security model. You might regard Vista as a piece of junk, but the security system is actually very good and places severe obstacles in the way of viruses. Yes, you know, those things that XP attracts like flies.
Turning off UAC not only turns off the prompts, but it also turns off several other good pieces of security that prevent browser-based exploits and buffer overflow attacks.
So DON'T TURN IT OFF.
(Also, Windows XP users: Create an administrator account and change your normal account to "Limited User". Use the administrator account only when you need to install software or change your systemwide settings.)
UAC
by Brons2 - 1/17/09 2:59 AM In reply to: No! by 3rdalbumIt's toned down a bit in the Windows 7 beta. It will still go off when programs try to install, but if you make clearly intentional changes to Windows (like updating drivers, changing screen resolution or opening System Management) it does not pop up.
Yes - Turn that crap off!! It's overkill
by Kingdaddy2000 - 1/17/09 6:46 AM In reply to: No! by 3rdalbumUser Account Control is a huge mistake - I turned it off mid-last year and would never go back. It is ridiculous to be asked for everything you try to do! Microsoft failed miserably with this and should have designed a better way to implement the "other good pieces of security" referenced. I don't need the PC to ask me if I want to do something every time I try to.
A better alternative to UAC
by Fatboy71 - 1/17/09 1:46 AM In reply to: Permissions to install by wayneepalmerUAC is a good idea but it should give you the option on not been asked to allow permission on a known and trusted program that you run often. Well this is where Norton User Account Control comes in. It works in the same way has Vista's UAC but Norton's UAC gives you the option to tick a box so as it will not ask you again if you want to run that program, this is extremely useful for when you know and trust the program in question.
I have used Norton's UAC for a while now and find it invaluable. Below is the link to it.
http://www.nortonlabs.com/inthelab/uac.php
Go With Vista
by iainadams123 - 1/17/09 5:06 AM In reply to: Vista or wait for Windows 7 by shrekeretteHaving gone through the experience of a malware infestation, I actually appreciate Vista's frequent request for permission for downloads and installations. I would recommend getting the best you can afford right now and my top choice would be Vista. The guys are right to suggest waiting a year after Windows 7 is out.
You can shut that annoying permission Box off!
by ctime - 1/17/09 7:02 AM In reply to: Vista or wait for Windows 7 by shrekeretteAll you have to do is click on Windows Logo/ Start at bottom left, type - User Account Control in the search box, click on it and then Select "Turn User Account Control On or Off", Click on it and set it to off! Presto, then Vista flies :P
Several answers
by rbsjrx - 1/9/09 8:47 PM In reply to: Should I wait for Windows 7 or move on to Vista now? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
CNN ran a recent informal poll. The question was whether Microsoft should dump Vista. The results were 78% said yes and 22% said no. That tends to confirm the conventional wisdom that Vista is a dog. So what about Win7? Steve Balmer has said that Win7 is a new improved Vista so that, combined with Windows' history of new releases not becoming really stable until at least SP1 doesn't bode well for Win7 early adopters.
Lots of people will tell you to gt a Mac, but that may not be an appropriate answer for you. Even if you can get all the functionality you need, Macs are more expensive than PCs. Whether that investment is for you depends on your choice of the "Evil Empire" (Microsoft or Apple) that you want to support.
Other folks, like me, will suggest Linux - specifically Ubuntu. Although the OS and most apps are free, whether it's suitable for your circumstances is something I can't say. All I can say is that it does everything I need, so I'm in the process of migrating to it since I'm on the verge of retirement and will no longer have a need for a Windows PC.
Both OSX and Linux, like Unix, are based on the Posix standard and can use journaling file systems which means that they're inherently more reliable OSs than Windows. Whether the individual applications which run on them are more reliable is another issue.
So what's left? Microsoft has officially stopped selling WinXP. However there is a loophole. A lot of corporate customers have refused to migrate from WinXP to Vista so that you can buy machines targeted for business users from the likes of Dell, HP, et al which are preloaded with Vista but have a WinXP "downgrade" feature. If you buy one of those, you can perform the downgrade and run WinXP on your new machine. Doing so avoids the bloat, resource hogging, and compatibility issues of running Vista.
So there you have three suggestions. Both Mac OSX and Linux are vastly more reliable than any known Windows version, but neither may meet your needs. WinXP is obsolescent but Microsoft can't stop selling it to large corporate clients, so it's available if you buy the right machine. Choose your poison...
Vista
by clay58 - 1/9/09 9:26 PM In reply to: Several answers by rbsjrx"CNN ran a recent informal poll. The question was whether Microsoft should dump Vista. The results were 78% said yes and 22% said no. That tends to confirm the conventional wisdom that Vista is a dog."
That confirms nothing. It just means that lots of people have lots of opinions. I know many people who will bad mouth Vista, and they don't even run the OS. I know of no one who is running Vista on a computer with the proper hardware and necessary memory, that does not think it is superior to XP. Name one thing that is better on XP than on Vista. The UAC on Vista can be easily turned off thus making the argument of it being a nuisance a mute issue. Vista is more secure than XP, and is less prone to crashes. I have been running Vista Premium for almost 2 years with not one crash. Of course my computer was built for Vista with 4 GB of Ram and was not a upgrade. I also own a iMac running Leopard, and would highly recommend anyone give the Mac a test drive. Mac is no more expensive than a Windows PC when you compare apples to apples. take a look at the HP or Sony all in one Vista PCs and then tell me the iMac is more expensive. It is actually less expensive than either Windows all-in-one PC. The difference is Apple makes no cheap budget computers, as you can find on Windows PC. Also an Apple computer pretty mush comes with all the software you will need pre-installed. So, give the iMac a look, and you will not be sorry. I did and I will never ever go back to a Windows PC. Once my Vista computer dies, I am done with Windows for good. But for now, I am a PC & a Mac, so I have experience with both. The Mac is a superior OS, and I love it.
Since you asked...
by rbsjrx - 1/9/09 9:41 PM In reply to: Vista by clay58"I know of no one who is running Vista on a computer with the proper hardware and necessary memory, that does not think it is superior to XP."
That's one of the first issues - Vista is a resource hog and will not run well on a machine built for WinXP. Some of us don't like MS trying to force us into buying new hardware for the privilege of running their "latest & greatest".
"Name one thing that is better on XP than on Vista."
How bout two - hardware requirements and compatibility with older software. I have some legacy software (e.g. some old tax software that I need to run if I want to open my old returns and development tools for old jobs that I'm committed to maintain) that I have to run which won't run under Vista.
"Vista is more secure than XP, and is less prone to crashes."
Not in my experience. Besides, if I want reliability, I'll use Linux. It runs for years without ever crashing! As always, YMMV. Because of the large number of applications on my machine (193 at last count, many with custom drivers), I'm a lot more likely to see a crash than someone who mostly runs only a few popular programs.
"Of course my computer was built for Vista with 4 GB of Ram and was not a upgrade."
None of my machines has more than 2GB of RAM. WinXP doesn't need it and Ubuntu can run quite happily with only 512MB. My notebook only has 1GB and dual boots WinXP and Linux.
"Once my Vista computer dies, I am done with Windows for good."
On this we agree. Except I'm not waiting for it to die. As I approach retirement I'm actively migrating to Linux since the only reason I have a Windows PC is as a business necerssity.
Vista v. Windows 7
by prefernone - 1/18/09 8:23 AM In reply to: Vista by clay58I am one of those people this person does not know, who is running Vista with the proper hardware and accessories and am furious with MS on a daily basis for the pain and aggravation caused by trying to deal with unnecessary problems caused by the Vista OS. I am working with a Gateway FX4710 Intel Quad processor machine with 6 GB ram. If that is not within the parameters of "proper hardware and necessary memory" there is another significant problem. I've had User Account turned off from day 1 and it is a constant battle to try to perform simple operations because I do not have permission to work with the file I just created and similar. Turning it off does not cure the permission problems. And then there is all this reasonably new hardware sitting around me that works sometimes, locks up sometimes and the problems all trace back to Vista and drivers. My wife manages to lock up the system in Quicken or Quickbooks almost every time she uses the computer, generally well after mid-night. Yes, we can duplicate the malfunctions and they are not related to user errors. Both MS & Intuit pass off the problems as the other's responsibility. Google it, it is well documented by everyone except MS & Intuit.
I am currently surrounded by a maze of four computers, 1 w/Win98 SE, 1 w/XP Home, 1 w/XP Pro & 1 w/Vista Home Premium. Each is updated to the most current SP & downloads available. Each is required to access programs & data not readily moved into a single system and it requires multiple printers in order to print. My work computers use XP by choice of the IT folks who get a constant buzz out of my Vista problems.
The answer to the original question depends on the persons investment in his specific programs and his ability to use his data in the different platforms. If he has everything in MSWord for example, does not work in other programs and can successfully convert everything into the newest version of his program, he would do well if he checked out that program, evaluated the new features & changes & if he perceived an advantage, bought the most computer he is willing to pay for and began enjoying the benefits between purchase and upgrade time.
Not much difference between Word Processing speed between Win98SE 900 Mhz unit & Vista quad processor unit until the file sizes become very large and the formating becomes intensive. Lots of difference in crunching lots of numbers. Lots of infuriating differences in the actual programs. Think you are good in a program, try out the new stuff and start over on the learning curve.
Mac/schmack. Can't look at a lot of Mac graphics w/o saying very nice things about the displays. Lots of good things to say about them but they are not a current viable alternative to replace a significant investment in programs and data which must be compatabile with systems not likely to change from MS. Compatability situation is significantly improved over just a few years ago, but still is not sufficient to routinely go back and forth between systems using many different programs during the same day & on a daily basis.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
