To Windows 7 or not to Windows 7

kmmr

I have a HP Laptop, running Vista. Nothing particularly wrong with it, but I am thinking of upgrading to Windows 7.

What does anyone think of it? How hard is it to upgrade? And can I put all my files in one folder that is retained, rather than having to transfer it all onto an external drive?

Thanks!

KMMR

Money_Grabber13579

Windows 7 will be faster than Vista, similar to XP probably. If you get the upgrade version, then yes you can keep your files, but best to do a backup just in case. Although the best results seem to occur with a clean install.

computershack

Windows 7 is NOT faster than Vista. Benchmarks are like for like. What it does is APPEAR and FEEL like it is.

If Vista is working, stick with it. Windows 7 is nice and has some nice GUI changes but nothing worth shelling out £70 or more for if your current OS does what you want. If you can get Win7 legitimately for free, then stick it on. But don't think you're going to end up with Windows XP performance as has been suggested because the myriad of benchmarks prove that to be a lie.

As for the folder issue, if you do a clean install then as long as you don't format the drive, it'll move all your files to a Windows.old folder where you can copy them back to where you want them.

web_ferret

Microsoft do a free upgrade tool advisor, run this and see what will and won't run on your computer. How good are you at upgrading drivers?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1B544E90-7659-4BD9-9E51-2497C146AF15&displaylang=en

kmmr

web_ferret wrote: »

Microsoft do a free upgrade tool advisor, run this and see what will and won't run on your computer. How good are you at upgrading drivers?

Installing things isn't a worry to me, happy to go and track them all down if needed. Can I get a list generated automatically of the ones that i have at the moment?

Money_Grabber13579

computershack wrote: »

Windows 7 is NOT faster than Vista. Benchmarks are like for like. What it does is APPEAR and FEEL like it is.

Well if it appears like it is and feels like it is, then it is. I even went as far as googling the first part, windows 7 is not faster, and I found nothing to back that up. All the results that came back stated that it was faster. And it is, cause it's much less resource hungry. So your post is totally confusing.

I moved from XP straight to 7 on one computer, and I can say that there is little difference in performance. So I don't know how you can tell me that they are not on par with each other. I've tried them both on the same computer. Must be a physic.

Money_Grabber13579

By the way, you don't have to shell out £70. If you're a student, then you can get it for £30.

computershack

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

Well if it appears like it is and feels like it is, then it is.

Really? Thats despite all the tests with file transfers, rendering pictures, encoding MP3s and framerates in games showing no or very little difference and certainly nothing approaching Windows XP performace?

I even went as far as googling the first part, windows 7 is not faster, and I found nothing to back that up. All the results that came back stated that it was faster. And it is, cause it's much less resource hungry. So your post is totally confusing.

Thats because you looked for the wrong thing. Try looking at benchmarks.

I moved from XP straight to 7 on one computer, and I can say that there is little difference in performance. So I don't know how you can tell me that they are not on par with each other. I've tried them both on the same computer. Must be a physic.

I can tell you because unlike you, I obviously have a clue. Did you test file transfer rates? Did you test how long it took to encode an audio track to MP3? Did you run FRAPS on a game to see how many FPS it could do in each or did you just slap it on? If the latter is what you did, you've confirmed what I said about it just appearing to be as fast as XP - something very easily done in the start menu for example by a mere single registry entry alteration to change the delay before showing a new menu.

z0nk

computershack wrote: »

I can tell you because unlike you, I obviously have a clue.

Obviously not.

John_the_Boy

Much better than Vista - much more stable. Feels snappier, about as fast as XP (or feels that way).

Best thing I did was to get rid of Vista.

spaceboy

computershack wrote: »

Really? Thats despite all the tests with file transfers, rendering pictures, encoding MP3s and framerates in games showing no or very little difference and certainly nothing approaching Windows XP performace?
.

It is faster than XP.

Also, benchmarks dont tell the whole story. It is faster than vista in many ways. Especially on computers with integrated graphics, which is quite a high percentage of PCs out there. It's also far faster if you just have 1GB of RAM.