Windows Vista forum: Should I wait for Windows 7 or move on to Vista now?

My first Windows was 3.0. Let me be clear, I hate Vista and expect to run XP Home the rest of my life. I intend to get new equipment as I need it, but retain my XP install disks. I have read up on 7 and it seems to be mostly Vista 2.0. Both XP (and somewhat less) Vista were a bit rough on hardware. I have to run 98 at a Lab where I do volunteer work. Haven't found a donated machine yet that won't run it smoothly. It is a good reminder for me in that I can make 98 do anything I want. A 2-3 gig drive is roomy and the system is fast. SO, if your system is struggling and you feel you must update I recommend landing in the low middle of "current" technology and go to Vista if you must. 7 should run as well as any new release. BUT, make sure you really want and need the Vista to do what you want. I'm inclined to do a rolling equipment upgrade with a stick of memory or added HD. XP can be very smoothe with plenty of ram and five or six hundred bucks to get Vista...not me.

Vista is good as long as you don't buy the Basic Vista windows 7 Is going to be and upgrated version of Windows Vista so i read. Most likely Windows will just put and upgrade from Vista to 7 like the did from XP to Vista.
good Luck

I've seen the Windows 7 Beta demos and it is worlds better than Vista Service Pack 1. Also if you just can't wait try to get a Intel Core i7 machine and then upgrade to Windows 7 when it becomes available.

As you might have notice theres still a lot of problems w/Vista.If they will ever get the kinks out,? Its very hard to tell othewise I don't think they would of come out w/the new version quite as quickly. As for windows 7 that might be the way to go,more user freindly! almost all thats come out from the ones in the know has been positive overall, It just might be worth your wait..

First of all, win95 was a no brainer to win 3.1 which was just a shell running on DOS. It was their first object oriented desktop with full multitasking. Anyone that didn't notice the difference there would be someone that only runs one application at a time. I normally have a dozen sessions open at home. At work it can be many more. <br><br>
As for win98 being bug fixes for win95, your statement is true with any OS, the next version always gets a ton of bug fixes. BUT, win98 had a huge advantage that seperated it greatly from win95...Profiles. And this was long before Apple offered profiles. Now the whole family can have their own login and desktop to call their own. Same at the office for multi-user locations of course. This was a huge advancement over win95 and I know many sites that still have win98 machines running strong to this day. <br><br>
As for Aero being a memory hog, you would have to understand how WDDM works, which if you read the whitepapers you'll discover is a HUGE advance over XP in terms of graphics. It makes Vista worth it right there, unless you don't like 3-D graphics and stunning game graphics. But the fact is Aero had very little impact on RAM usage turned on or off due to the way that WDDM works. So this statement is more often one that comes from those who prefer linux and don't use Vista. Turning off Aero gains a user very little and takes away the best UI I've used to date. I absolutely love Aero graphics. People dismiss too quickly how much their visual enivironment means to their mood, creativit and overall productivity.
I am a contractor with several hospital sites and I can tell you anyone I know that has allowed themselves to close their ears to all of the Vista bashing end up loving it. For the more advanced users it only takes a few hours of tinkering with Vista to find where all of the things they need are located. Average home users will get used to it in a week or so, if they are really used to win2kpro or XP. But once they do they almost always love it.
<br>
<br>
Some people thing search was "turned off". It's not and once you learn how to use it with Vista, you will love it. Search folders are new and very very simple to use. Let's say you search for documents with certain names in the CC lines on a semi regular basis. That would be a perfect candidate for a search folder. You just right click search folders in Windows explorer, it's usually in view in the top area where you see computer, documents etc., and choose to build a new one. You'll get a dialog like you get for advanced search only you save it with a name. Then everytime you want to perform that search, you click and open search folders then click your search folder and your data will come up very quickly. Remember that indexing and folder options are two areas you must consider when doing searching. It was the same in XP only you had less choice on what got indexed. It was the whole driver or nothing. I have chose to index only my email personal folders, a few areas on an external drive where I store all of my photos and then my user folder and all of it's subfolders where your documents, music and other personal stuff is normally stored.
To get regular search (it's gone from the right click/context menu), you simply start typing your search into the search box in the upper right corner of all windows explorer screens. It will start returning partial matches as soon as it finds them. If you dont find what you are looking for immediately after you stop typing the search file contents and advanced search links show up under the results that did come back. If there were no results the links will be right there at the top of the right hand side. Also at this point the header in windows explorer has a new tool bar with advanced searching options.
So you can get to advanced search easily, you only need start your search. <br><br>
Another "missing" item is the "RUN" box. You do NOT need the run box with Vita. As soon as you click the start button the search box will have focus so you can just start typing the name of the program you want. Any matches will show up at the top of the now empty left column above the search box you just click it and you are done. If a help desk tells you to run programx.exe in the run box, just type that name in the search box instead and quick as can be it will show up above where you are typing and you click it to run it.
I have found that every problem people talk about on forums usually has an easier and better way to perform it in Vista. You only need be willing to adjust to a little change. Something we all need in life from time to time.
<br><br>
System Restore now allows you to repair many more scenarios that it did with XP. It is much more robust. The task scheduler is now a full fledged interface where you can setup tasks or alter any you like very easily.
<br>
For example, I didn't like that the system was creating a restore point every time i logged on and the scheduled one never ran because i click the button that looks like a power button under start at night to put it in a low power state instead of shutting it entirely down. (i know about the energy being used in this case...shame on me) And I found systemRestore folder in Task Scheduler and found the scheduled task (there is also a manual one you can start running from there if you like. Same one that runs if you kick it off from the drive properties tools tab. Anyway, I changed the scheduled run to "wake the computer" at 1:30am every night and it creates one flawlessly every night. I also changed the defrag task to run the same way cause it was never finishing. You can see the history of each task below it in this interface, it's nice, and i saw defrag would not run at night of course (back when i was shutting it down) and it was set to run at the next time user was logged on and computer was idle. That seems fine but it never was getting done. <br>
So i set it to run at 2:30am and to wake the computer once a week and now my machine is getting a full defrag run weekly w/o a problem. I could have set it to run even when the machine is not idle, in the settings for "if missed" (if you want to shut your machine down completely) so that it ran when i logged on the next time, but defrag is a bit of a drag on the average PC to be running while you are trying to work.
Make sure you are getting restore points created successfully as well as the defrag is running successfully on a regular basis. The task scheduler interface is great, you drill down till you are under the windows folder and, for example find defrag folder. You click into that you'll see the manual and scheduled options. click on the scheduled option (near the top in the large right hand pane you get when opening a task) and down below you'll see a row of tabs. they will show you how it's setup for general, triggers, actions, history.
If you right click the task and choose properties you can change those setup options under each tab. But the history tab will show you if the task is running successfully and it's like the event viewer sort of, and you can scroll back and see if it's been running consistently an if not, why.
Sorry for all of the detail here. the point is, vista is different than XP but it is far more secure, stable and be sure to get the x64 version of Vista and that your machine has a 64 bit processor. the core 2 duo and above are 64 bit. Runs 20% faster than a 32 bit Vista OS and is just more stable. The world is moving to 64 bit, don't invest in new hardware w/o getting a 64bit machine and OS. I have Vista Ultimate x64 and i've not had any problems at all. And don't forget that your XP drivers will run on Vista. You don't have to buy new hardware if it works with XP. Mainly if it's supported by XPSP2.
<br>
Some forums tend to lead people astray here cause there are many people out there unfortunately that want Window to do poorly and are writing negative entries and even bloggers are writing against Vista but they are half truths and not accurate most times. <br>
If you have a device, let's say a Sony handicam you got in 2003 as example. And you get a new Vista machine and want to hook your camera up with your PC, so you get the disc with the driver on it and it's only for up to XP machines. You try to run it and it fails. <br>
THERE IS AN EASY Way around this situation. Browse out on to the disc and find the setup program. They are easy to find and if you are not sure which program it is, when you pop the disc in, a little window will come up with options and the first one will be to run the install/setup program on the disc and the name of it will be there.
<br>
then right click that file and choose RESTORE PREVIOUS versions from the context menu. You will get a dialog with several tabs. (it will come up with no prior versions if you wait on the general tab, but you just need to go to the COMPATIBILITY Tab and click the box that says compatibility mode and choose XP sp2 compatibility and click OK.
<br>
Then just double click that setup or install file and it will run w/o a problem, and install the XP driver on your Vista machine. <br>
It sounds like a lot of steps but it's really just a few extra steps than installing it normally, you just have to open that dialog , click compatibility mode for XP and you are done....just run it then. <br>
It's very very easy.

As someone who used to be on the directors board of the IT department of a big company, my feeling has always been that getting the latest Microsoft OS (or any Microsoft product for that matter) was like being volunteer to act as a Guinea Pig. Every new OS is full of loopholes that hackers are more than happy to exploit, not to mention compatibility issues with older external hardware (no driver designed for the new OS) and software that haven't been designed for the new OS. I have a laptop which is about a year old and the first thing I did was to get rid of Vista to install XP because Vista was too "fragile" for my liking. I still run XP (now with SP3) and sometimes I still receive security patches for it... What would that be with Vista??? You might think that since these loopholes have been identified, the newer OS got rid of them. Sometimes it true. But because the core of the new OS has changed (if it hadn't, what would be the point of a new OS), new loopholes have appeared. If I were you, I would wait a long time before switching to Windows 7. I don't see myself using it before 3 years... As for my old XP, it does what I need: office documents, internet, music and video, play, well everything that 80% of people need to do with a computer.

Hi,
This question routinely comes up. It always ends with the same outcome. Windows Vista, you either love it or hate it. Personally I like it (probably as I spent time getting to know it). A lot of people in the industry are hanging onto XP awaiting the next installment from Microsoft (Windows 7).
But we are talking about you, not the wider community. You have not mentioned whether you have used Vista before, and if you did, are you comfortable with using it. Did you find it suited your needs. There are a lot of questions in this area, but it is all personal choice.
If you have used Vista and are happy with its style, go with it.
If you have used Vista and are not happy with it, wait for Windows 7. Keep in mind, when operating systems are initially released, they usually have security issues and rely on feedback from users to counter these. This is why most IT professionals will tell you to wait at least 12 months after release to purchase. This allows the Microsoft time to iron out all the issues and release a service pack. If you still cannot make a decision, or you really don't like Vista have you considered installing XP (old faithful) and then performing an upgrade when the jury is out on Windows 7.
I hope this helps out. As I said operating systems are all about personal use, and only you know what you like. Play around with them, if you can, and then make a call.

I worked at NASA for several years doing tech support and when I left there 4 years ago they were still using windows 95 for even critical work with windows, although all the truly important mission based work was all done with Solaris. In any case, their reason when I asked why Win 95 was that every glitch and flaw had either been patched or was well documented. For servers they used good old NT SP4. In any case, having tried Win 7 beta, it does seem better made than Vista, but my standing question is if Win 7 takes off and does very well, how much will they dedicate to supporting and patching Vista post Win 7 release?

Member Haroldbld, I do empathize with your resistance to change but there are significant benefits despite Vista's "annoyances", particularly to Surfers. The escalating profusion of internet based malware will make you very thankful that M$ built Vista from the ground up with Security as its primary focus. Win 7 may be more "user-friendly" but the expert consensus is that the integrity of UAC has been compromised in order to achieve that goal.

More than likely, your current machine is infected even though you may not be aware of it. For starters, I suggest that you run a scanner such as SuperAntiSpyware (SAS). This program is free and one of the best of the new breed of scanners that I have tested. I also suggest checking out some of the advice offered by Eric S. on his blob entitled, "Invincible Windows".

Provided that your hardware is adequate to run Vista [2GB RAM, Dual Core CPU 2.0Ghz +, preferrably a dedicated Video Card such as an NVIDIA 8600GT with 256MB] then you should obtain excellent performance - provided that the OS and Hardware have been updated with the current patches (as in at least up to the end of February 2009). The performance difference can be huge since most issues can be tagged to poorly written device drives that vendors were slow to update.

You may also find that after you get over the initial shock of the change (and struggled to figure out how to relate the old to the new), many features are actually better written in Vista and many unnecessary steps have been reduced or eliminated. The greatest barrier is that we have become accustomed to doing things so inefficiently.

Though I would not have stated this a few months ago, choosing XP Pro over Vista only really makes sense if:

(1) You have many older programs or hardware (such as printers) that you want to continue using.

(2) You want to spend as little $$$ as possible on Hardware and are not willing or desirous of spending enough $$$ to acquire the minimum suggested above.

(3) Extremely resistant to change.

Hopefully you will consider dusting off the Dell and at least downloading and installing all the latest patches and then take it for another spin. Especially after you have done some malware scans on your Acer XP Pro machine, you may come to view the Vista machine more favourably.

The fourth category are those that confuse Windows with Office and do not like Office 2007 and blame it on Vista.

The fifth category are those that hate Vista because they simply heard it from someone in categories 1 thru 4 and have never tried it themselves.

Windows XP is the last version of Windows anyone should consider buying.

If you absolutely must use Microsoft Windows (and few people fit this description), then buy Windows XP Professional.

For everyone else, install Linux: either Ubuntu or Fedora.

While I am all for the open source movement the reality is that a lot of people for a myriad of reasons won't be able to completely move away from Windows. They may use Mozilla or Opera for all their web browsing and OpenOffice as their MS Office replacement, but there may be one or more applications that either run poorly or not at all through Wine or Crossover. They should still continue to use various cross platform open source applications where possible, but a clean break to Linux just isn't feasible. While there are millions who could fairly easily make such a clean break I think that the percentage that still need Windows for some reason is a bit greatly than you imply.

In addition, if one stays on the Microsoft bandwagon one has to be aware that Windows XP enters extended support on April 14th of this year. Once it hits extended support Microsoft only releases patches for issues that they deem critical. For seemingly arbitrary reasons Microsoft has sometimes deemed one issue critical on the current release, but not critical on an older version so that they don't have to release a patch. Since Windows is a closed source OS you are pretty much at the mercy of Microsoft whims upon whether they want to keep supporting it. At least within a business environment I wouldn't consider XP a viable OS once XP enters its' extended support phase. Unless one has a compelling reason to not use Vista (eg. they are running an application that doesn't run on Vista and is either rather expensive or is in-house and would therefore be expensive to update) I think it would be best to move onto Vista. As long as you are on the Microsoft upgrade path you will face forced upgrades that will cost you plenty of money. Short of figuring out a way towards an open source solution you don't have much of an alternative.

Furthermore, for a lot of consumers XP Pro like the Business version of Vista provides features that most users will never use assuming that they even understand their purpose (eg. Domain Based networking).

While vista is now much more stable than it was upon release and 7 is a new and not yet proven beta release I would go with the vista after July if your able to. 1) it gives you the option to upgrade if you wish to try the new windows 7 when it's released but also gives you the ability to go back to vista with your recovery disks should all else fail. I run XP on all my machines at home including an AMD 4600+ duel core and while i am open to looking at other operating systems to play with I haven't yet gone the Vista/7 route.

My mother uses Linux and she knows squat about computers. I put Ubuntu on her machine and as far as I know the people tied mostly to MS are the ones that need special apps. As long as she can start her browser, do her mail and get pictures and such all she thinks is the Start menu changed. For all she knows it could be the new MS OS in her eyes.

I'm using XP Pro. and I've used both Ubuntu and Fedora light. It's a sharp learning curve, but short at best. In my opinion, I would do neither, unless you really need a Ws. O.S. I agree with B.Blackmoor. Get a version of Linux and learn how to use it. You won't be sorry. It's time that Microsoft, learned how to meet the needs of its users, rather than the other way around. Shop with your feet, or in this case shop with your O.S.