[-X-]

Just curious what percentage of the the mixed crowd here will be upgrading.

Also, if you could let us know what OS you will be upgrading from.

Thanks!

[Sponsor]

[nitropuppy]

Definitely

[beats]

Quite probably, yes. It's what Vista should have been.

[Tripredacus]

Once we get the OA2.1 cert done, I'd like to upgrade my workstation at work to 7. Right now it runs Server 2003.

[FAT64]

We shall be upgrading from XP; skip Vista completely!

[vaska94]

No Way, 98 and XP rulez
i will not upgrade to 7 for i think 2 years or more

[Zenskas]

I will be upgrading from Windows XP. I may however wait until SP1 comes out then upgrade (look at all the improvements SP1 did for XP and Vista) however when I think about it RC1 could be good enough to be gold so the actual gold version may be like a SP1 for RC1

[Maleko]

I certainly will be.

Been testing it on my laptop, work PC and home PC, and havent had ANY of the problems I had with Vista, and its so much quicker etc etc, people should learn by how good W7 is to how pathetic vista REALLY is!

This post has been edited by Maleko: 12 June 2009 - 06:38 AM

[gamehead200]

Yes, but as a secondary OS.

[ripken204]

im already running it as my main OS on 2 of my computers.
ive been running vista since RC2 as my main OS for years now.
i am loving win7 so far.

beats, on Jun 11 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Quite probably, yes. It's what Vista should have been.

thats what i have been telling people

[MagicAndre1981]

[x] no

Windows Vista for idiots (Windows 7) doesn't bring up too much new thing which make a upgrade usefull.

Vista performs well and all required and must have fixes are not included, so I'll skip Win7

[herbalist]

Why should I "upgrade" to a system that would force me to buy new hardware just to match the performance of what I have now?
Rick

[-X-]

herbalist, on Jun 12 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

Why should I "upgrade" to a system that would force me to buy new hardware just to match the performance of what I have now?

Good point.

Have you ran both 98 and XP on the same system? If so, how is the performance of 98 compared to XP? It's been almost 10 years since I last used it.

This post has been edited by -X-: 12 June 2009 - 07:45 PM

[5eraph]

I'll move to a new OS when I buy hardware that requires it. So far, XPx64 serves my needs quite well with previously high-end hardware from 2005. If I buy new hardware next year, I'll consider a new OS for it.

So far, I'm not impressed with the DRM that's been included with Vista and later MS products. I don't have Blu-ray. I have DX9 videocards that run as fast as I'd like in SLI, so DirectX10 is not important to me. I still use CRT monitors with analog connectors. Why on earth would I buy an OS that requires new hardware when what I've got is perfect for my current needs?

NT 5.2 is currently a very stable and mature server platform. XPx64 is built upon it, and is also very stable. It may not receive another official service pack after SP2, but I'll continue to work on an update pack for it as long as I continue to use it.

[herbalist]

I'm not using XP. On this PC I'm running Win2000, 98FE, 98SE and 2 flavors of Linux. As far as comparing 2K and 98:
98 boots up and shuts down a lot faster.
Applications start and run slightly faster on 98 but not as many are 98 compatible.
once they're both tuned up, internet speeds are about equal.
Both will run for several days continuous. After a couple of days, 98 starts to lose stability.
Out of the box, a 98 install is fast but unstable. It needs a lot of upgrading and tweaking to make it a stable and reliable system. IMO, the results are worth it. 2K is stable out of the box but sluggish. It needs tuning to reach its speed potential.

When I do upgrade my hardware, I'll probably run the same operating systems I am now. IMO, an OS should be a platform that runs your software and interfaces with your hardware, nothing more. Beyond that, it should stay out of the way. AFAIC, the newer operating systems don't meet that requirement and are moving in the opposite direction. I don't need an OS that uses more disk space than all my software combined. That's not an upgrade. It's a big waste. If MS won't produce an OS that meets that simple requirement, I'll keep using their old ones. When that's no longer possible, I'll move to another OS like Linux.
Rick

[Mordac85]

At work I've been testing & using Win7 since the inital Alpha release and we plan to migrate from XP to Win7. The way I see it Microsoft has 2 types of upgrades, plumbing & polish. Vista was a plumbing change and since it really wasn't ready for prime time, Win7 comes out and is a polish upgrade of Vista the same way XP was for Windows 2000.

[bj-kaiser]

same here, Ubuntu user at home.
at work we will hopefully upgrade from XP to 7, as long as our computer centre doesnt force Vista upon us... for having matured for one year or whatever bull.... (hopefully we will get rid of all those users with local admin accounts on the way)

[Mordac85]

We'll never get rid of all the admins because they are too used to having the rights and would cry uncontrollably until senior management caves in just to shut them up.

Actually, VMware's virtual desktop looks very promising and you can control the permissions to the applications so that the user's only have user rights but can run the app with admin rights if needed.

[bj-kaiser]

well, I'll try to reduce it to people who KNOW what they are doing.

We have at least one person in every department that has sort of a "1st level support" clause in their job description. They keep a lot of work away from "internal services".

I can see them having an admin account for the machines in THAT department.

But the normal user with admin rights? sorry, the situation as it is is total chaos. nobody asks IT about what they install on their machines, in contradiction to the written rules. that IT doesnt come down hard on them upon discovering that doesnt help either.

[Mordac85]

I'm finding that not supporting problems caused by those rogue installs is helping. First thing I ask is 'who installed xyz' and if they say they did I uninstall it and Ta Da! All better! They normally freak when the uninstall starts, but when I point out that they aren't authorized to install it and that they'll have to discuss it w/their manager to get it back they tend to shut up.

Oh and we have permission to yank out all of the crap (Google Earth, toolbars, Skype, etc) if we even see it on their systems. I love the security officer!

This post has been edited by Mordac85: 16 June 2009 - 01:47 PM