Is it really worth upgrading from Vista to 7?

[sculelos]

Just want some opinions here, I'm currently using 64bit Vista and wonder if upgrading would provide any major bonuses.

Thanks for any reply's.

 

[Joe Average]

Yes, to both questions. Yes, it's really worth upgrading, and yes you'll get bonuses with improved hardware support and also somewhat better performance because of improvements with Superfetch and other aspects of the core OS itself. It's not Vista, it's better.

/thread

 

[Stoly]

Yes, to both questions. Yes, it's really worth upgrading, and yes you'll get bonuses with improved hardware support and also somewhat better performance because of improvements with Superfetch and other aspects of the core OS itself. It's not Vista, it's better.

/thread

I think the Average Joe, won't see any major bonuses from upgrading from vista to 7. Unless you can find an upgrade for cheap then I don't see any reason to go 7.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Better hardware support?

Such as? everything worked for me in Vista.....

as for performance, i saw little going from vista to 7, if you have a decent rig with you don, you wont see gains and be like "OMG!! this is so much faster!"

 

[BlueMonster]

I think the Average Joe, won't see any major bonuses from upgrading from vista to 7. Unless you can find an upgrade for cheap then I don't see any reason to go 7.

Seriously ?? you could delete half of system 32 and vista would still be just as fast... Bad OS is bad OS... Upgrade please...

 

[Joe Average]

Better hardware support?

Such as? everything worked for me in Vista.....

Got an SSD? Want TRIM support? Well, it ain't happening with Vista, sorry. That's just one thing... Proper alignment of the structure of an SSD? Vista? HA!

 

[sculelos]

Okay thanks for the replies. I suppose after I upgrade and get everything working there is no reason to keep Vista anymore is there? I think both platforms are 100% compatible correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

upgrading your OS for home use will provide no tangable benefits outside of SSD. Most of windows 7 upgrades over vista are aimed at corporate users.

I upgraded my current machine from Vista to 7 and saw absolutely no change in performance of the machine in day to day uses other than slightly faster load times......Nvidia was the #1 cause for vista problems in the beginning along with other manufacturers who did not do anything until after the platform was released. As an ATi user my self I had ZERO issues

 

[jeremyshaw]

Yeah, vista was a really good bounding board to soak up all the initial problems of a heavily reworked NT core. It caught the bad rap until 7 came out

Unless if it's under 50usd or so, I wouldn't upgrade. Or if you have a SSD, then upgrade

 

[sculelos]

upgrading your OS for home use will provide no tangable benefits outside of SSD. Most of windows 7 upgrades over vista are aimed at corporate users.

I upgraded my current machine from Vista to 7 and saw absolutely no change in performance of the machine in day to day uses other than slightly faster load times......Nvidia was the #1 cause for vista problems in the beginning along with other manufacturers who did not do anything until after the platform was released. As an ATi user my self I had ZERO issues

Yeah, vista was a really good bounding board to soak up all the initial problems of a heavily reworked NT core. It caught the bad rap until 7 came out

Unless if it's under 50usd or so, I wouldn't upgrade. Or if you have a SSD, then upgrade

Okay thanks for the replies. Load times aren't really a concern to me right now and I think SSD's are still too expensive to really consider buying at this point in time. I think I'll hold off on upgrading to 7 until it's at a better price point. For now I think Vista works good enough.

 

[Snufykat]

It is at the lowest price point it is going to be at already.
Family pack, 3 installs, $100. Find some friends and chip in.

 

[Chimel]

The good thing with modern operating systems is that you get native support for features that have been around for years such as Blu-ray and ... oh wait, no you don't! ^-^

I like Windows 7 much more than Vista, it has actually usable UAC, X.264 support, great XP compatibility mode, less bugs and exposure to virus, better system efficiencies, everything Vista should have been from the start.

I kept my old Vista x32 hard disk, so I now have dual boot between Win7 x64 and Vista x32, which I used Wednesday after Win7 SP1 install failed because of the language packs. Don't worry, Vista SPs do the same! ^-^

It will be 2 years before Windows 8 is around, so if you can get a good deal (and with SP1 integrated,) it's worth having the latest and greatest.

 

[Flyboat]

I think the Average Joe, won't see any major bonuses from upgrading from vista to 7. Unless you can find an upgrade for cheap then I don't see any reason to go 7.

I agree with this poster. If you have a legitimate copy of Window Vista, there is no point to spend another $200.00 to get Window 7. Unless you can get it at discount rate.

I know I won't.

 

[Gilthanis]

Wow...yet another person asking whether Vista to 7 is worth it. Perhaps using the search feature and reading the many other posts on this. You will find the same arguments and more with the same debates. Research 7 and see if it has any NEW features that you want/need and weigh the cost to get it. Pretty dumb to upgrade and waste money if you don't need to.

 

[Snufykat]

No one uses the search function, they can not even bother to read the posts in the forum they are asking a question in.
Have you seen the audio forum lately? Same couple of questions over and over again. It is kind of sad.

 

[Gilthanis]

How much is there really to ask in the audio forum other then compare a couple products? The rest is basic info that general Google search will provide. Not rocket science there.

 

[Chimel]

Guys, have you even tried to use Search? You would know that "7" is too short to be considered a keyword, and anyway Windows or Vista are present in almost every single post on [H], so there'd be several dozens of irrelevant threads or posts listed before anything related to the OP query would show.

Besides, the OP is totally right to ask the question now, after people have had over a year using Windows 7 and comparing with Vista, rather than theoritical arguments based on a list of specs or experience from Beta and RC versions.

Not mentioning that the Search feature on [H] sucks dodo rotten eggs... ^-^

 

[MrsOldMX]

No, it's not worth and Vista aligns SSD properly, that's not a Win7 only feature.

 

[rive22]

I skipped Vista all together so the upgrade was a true delight. Though I'll say, I then started repairing peoples computers here and there. The ones with shitty hardware ran like crap with Vista. Windows 7 runs great on practically anything P4 and after.

 

[rampantandroid]

Wow...yet another person asking whether Vista to 7 is worth it. Perhaps using the search feature and reading the many other posts on this. You will find the same arguments and more with the same debates. Research 7 and see if it has any NEW features that you want/need and weigh the cost to get it. Pretty dumb to upgrade and waste money if you don't need to.

Plenty of Benchies too that show perf improvements. RAM usage for me went down with 7.

 

[HiTech-Hate]

If Vista hasn't given you any problems (and I find it VERY hard to believe that it hasn't as Vista is a steaming pile of ....), and its just a home PC, then you might be best to stick with the "if it aint broke, don't fix it"

However, vista is garbage (not sure i'f i've made that clear yet ), and 7 offers many advantages over it, most notably that its generally stable).

When ppl say better hardware support they are saying that microsoft will roll out drivers and driver updates for new hardware a lot faster, and a lot more comprehensive for windows 7 then vista

Since you already have Vista though, it may be economically advisable to just do the upgrade though, cuz its not too expensive vs. buying a stand alone copy of 7, and I don't see the price of windows 7 upgrade/oem/full flucuating (aka going down) much if at all in the ... distant future

 

[Ur_Mom]

Vista was a great OS to me. I loved it. However, Windows 7 is greatly superior. It's faster, more stable, and just a better OS.

However, if you are not having any problems with Vista, and you are happy with the speed and such, I would consider the cost of the thing before I did do an upgrade.

Yes, you will notice a difference. BUT, it may not be worth the cost for you. You might try a trial of 7 (or borrow a copy and install it for 30 days), put it on a separate drive or partition and try it out. Give it a few weeks. If you like it, buy it. If not, delete it and go on with Vista. Nothing lost other than time.

 

[ThreeDee]

I run Vista on 3 different computers in my home, and ran it on my main machine until I found a Win7 upgrade for $35 locally .. I like Win7 better overall , but Vista ran great for me .. even in its free RC days from Microsoft .. been a great OS ..for me anyways .. hang on to Vista if it's working good for you now.

 

[Gorankar]

If you are using it on the PC in your sig, there is almost no reason to upgrade, unless you just want to. In fact, if you had the same system with 2 gigs of ram instead of 8 gigs, I would recommend you spend the money on more ram and not a new license. Win 7 is better than Vista, but not $200 better with modern hardware and adequate ram.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Got an SSD? Want TRIM support? Well, it ain't happening with Vista, sorry. That's just one thing... Proper alignment of the structure of an SSD? Vista? HA!

and if you dont have an SSD.... irrelevant.

Guys, have you even tried to use Search? You would know that "7" is too short to be considered a keyword, and anyway Windows or Vista are present in almost every single post on [H], so there'd be several dozens of irrelevant threads or posts listed before anything related to the OP query would show.

Besides, the OP is totally right to ask the question now, after people have had over a year using Windows 7 and comparing with Vista, rather than theoritical arguments based on a list of specs or experience from Beta and RC versions.

Not mentioning that the Search feature on [H] sucks dodo rotten eggs... ^-^

you search and specify the OS forum

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

The good thing with modern operating systems is that you get native support for features that have been around for years such as Blu-ray and ... oh wait, no you don't! ^-^

I like Windows 7 much more than Vista, it has actually usable UAC, X.264 support, great XP compatibility mode, less bugs and exposure to virus, better system efficiencies, everything Vista should have been from the start.

I kept my old Vista x32 hard disk, so I now have dual boot between Win7 x64 and Vista x32, which I used Wednesday after Win7 SP1 install failed because of the language packs. Don't worry, Vista SPs do the same! ^-^

It will be 2 years before Windows 8 is around, so if you can get a good deal (and with SP1 integrated,) it's worth having the latest and greatest.

wait wut? Vista/7 supports Blu-Ray just fine.......sorry that you actually have to buy a blu-ray software decode to watch movies, but it was that way with DVDs up until XP (win 98 had a DVD player built in but boy did that thing suck as it was software only with NO hardware assist thus making it useless not to mention problems with newer encodes). Plug a BD-Rom into your machine and both OS will load the approperiate drivers so that the drive is accessable to the system and you then can get data off of it.

Vista x64 is almost idenical in terms of virus resistivity as 7. Both OS are patched at the same time when it comes to security threats. Comparing Vista x86 to Win 7 x64 is not valid at saying one is better vs the other in virus resitivity. 7 x86 has the same issues as vista x86.........

As pointed out earlier if you are a home user, there is no point in upgrading as there is no tangable benefits outside of SSD. The ONLY reason i upgraded to 7 was because MS gave it to me for FREE.

My home machine has 8GB and vista used 1.7 and 7 uses 1.4 wow what a big savings there...........not worth paying for to get that savings

 

[bigdogchris]

Just want some opinions here, I'm currently using 64bit Vista and wonder if upgrading would provide any major bonuses.

Thanks for any reply's.

On the system you have in your sig, I wouldn't expect any major performance improvements. Both OSes benchmark similarly in games.

As for features, 7 is a more feature rich OS and has an improved UI in some area's. If your strapped for cash then I wouldn't bother upgrading if your happy with where your at.

 

[Chimel]

Vista/7 supports Blu-Ray just fine ... Comparing Vista x86 to Win 7 x64 is not valid at saying one is better vs the other in virus resitivity.

I am not comparing both, just saying that's what I have in my dual boot, and I never mentioned virus resistivity, only exposure, but it seems I'm wrong on this point, Windows 7 market share apparently overtook Vista's last year. Which seems to show the upgrade was worthwhile for many users.

And about Blu-ray support, I believe I put the word "native" somewhere...

 

[Joe Average]

So, OP, again, the answer is still "Yes."

 

[sculelos]

So, OP, again, the answer is still "Yes."

I probably will upgrade when I get around to it. Might be awhile since games perform well enough. Only thing that really annoys me about Vista is the boot times and the security system. Not sure how much 7 would improve either though.

 

[Joe Average]

Boot times are about the same, and why people actually shut off their PCs and "boot" anymore is beyond me - the laptop I'm typing this post on has been "on" for 3+ months... I reboot from time to time for updates, etc, but I haven't actually shut it down since early November.

But that's another thread.

As for the security, I'm guessing you're speaking of UAC prompts asking for permission to do things. UAC is simply how things are done now, but rest assured in Windows 7 a lot of changes took place underneath the hood, so to speak, and it doesn't prompt you nearly as much (like trying to open Device Manager in Vista triggers a prompt; in Windows 7 it doesn't, etc).

It's a better OS, seriously. The addition of being able to search for most anything nearly instantly from the Start Menu - it's far far more advanced and capable than the search in Vista - and many other respects just puts it out front of Vista. I don't recommend Vista to anyone, never really have, and anyone that asks the question you (meaning the OP) asked gets the standard automagic reply:

"Yes, it is."

 

[Gilthanis]

I am not comparing both, just saying that's what I have in my dual boot, and I never mentioned virus resistivity, only exposure, but it seems I'm wrong on this point, Windows 7 market share apparently overtook Vista's last year. Which seems to show the upgrade was worthwhile for many users.

And about Blu-ray support, I believe I put the word "native" somewhere...

Actually this statement is ignorant at best. Market share? Vista would not continue to take market share since it doesn't give anything better. Windows 7 is taking market share because those purchasing new PC's or upgrading older PC's have no incentive to go with the older OS if they are actually making a purchase. If Windows 8 came out today and only added a new desktop theme, it would take market share from 7 due the fact it is newer and will be supported longer. 7 had the advantage of Vista taking all the lumps with the new design. Your statement by no means shows a choice to 7 over Vista for any other reason then that.

 

[Chimel]

Actually this statement is ignorant at best. Market share? Vista would not continue to take market share since it doesn't give anything better. Windows 7 is taking market share because those purchasing new PC's or upgrading older PC's have no incentive to go with the older OS if they are actually making a purchase. If Windows 8 came out today and only added a new desktop theme, it would take market share from 7 due the fact it is newer and will be supported longer. 7 had the advantage of Vista taking all the lumps with the new design. Your statement by no means shows a choice to 7 over Vista for any other reason then that.

Yeah right, and I suppose Windows XP has the biggest market share of them all (40+%) because it comes preinstalled in new PCs?

By your reasoning, Windows Vista has been reigning alone for 3 years before Windows 7 released and therefore should have at least twice more market share than Windows 7, which has been around for over a year.

The fact is that Vista was never willingly adopted, especially by the enterprise sector. Windows 7 already has twice as much market share (20+%) than Vista in less than half the time, so this indubitably proves that existing Vista users are making the switch, not just new computer buyers, who probably have a XP or Vista license already anyway, but choose not to reinstall it.

You should do your research before calling people ignorant. I have been programming since the first Microsoft PC OS was called PC-DOS...

 

[SpongeBob]

Can anyone tell me if win7 fixes winsxs? I'm really hoping Win7 does. I want to know for when I install win7 so I know how large I should make the drive.
My winsxs folder is 78% of my Windows folder. 22GB+ Anyone know how to fix this or clean it up?

 

[Joe Average]

I'm not sure what you think needs "fixing" since the WinSxS folder is where the OS stores backup copies of most every file that gets installed by apps and the OS itself (because of Windows Updates). The reason for the WinSxS folder is so that in case something goes wrong, Windows itself has the backups of specific files that can be used to roll back changes - some folks will automagically think "ok, that's what System Restore is for..." but they're two different things.

WinSxS will grow as time passes because a) Windows Updates get installed, b) applications install software and sometimes have a tendency to overwrite system files with either modified or more current versions, and c) there can be multiple versions of the same specific file and again, if a problem crops up, it's possible to find a workable version and keep things running smoothly without resorting to a complete restore using System Restore, etc.

If you're a person that installs a lot of software, and I mean a lot of applications, games, software of all kinds, the WinSxS will grow, it's just how things go nowadays.

As for shrinking it, well, the only "cure" for that would be a clean installation of the OS, basically, which starts fresh without a ton of multiple versions/backup copies/etc, but of course as time goes by it's just going to grow again.

Not much anyone can really do about it, honestly, there's no "quick fix" that just sweeps it clean, it's too complicated and intrinsic to the operating system for that kind of operation.

It might be possible to just delete files outright from WinSxS, but as for just clearing the whole thing out in one fell swoop, that ain't happening...

 

[Chimel]

After a clean install of Win7 RTM and SP1 and one language pack, my winsx folder is only about 9 GB, so a clean install will save you some space.
Installing the slip-stream version (integrated RTM+SP1) will save you much more.

But winsxs (Windows Side by Side) is the standard location for many system and third-party files, so there's probably not much more you can do to optimize it, although there are some (very risky) winsxs cleaning tools around.

Winsxs also contains the components' assembly and manifest files, and all the different versions of them at that, the old dllcache (winsxs\backup) for self-healing purpose in case you accidently deleted a critical system file, and the multilingual INF and resource files, which basically means many of these files are duplicated if you install just one language pack.

The folder is used for just too many purposes to be manually optimized without risk, I would not touch it at all.
It is also supposed to contain some hardlinks, i.e. files physically located in other folders such as windows\syswow64, so the size of the folder is probably exaggerated by Windows Explorer. That's another reason why it's very dangerous to delete anything from this folder, bad things will happen if you delete the last hard link to a file.

Some of the winsxs cleaning tools may use hardlinks to save space, by replacing all identical copies of files with hardlinks. This is actually very dangerous, as redundancy is a key part of Windows self-healing ability, so if a file becomes corrupted, the system will not be able to recover smoothly if the corrupted file is the only one instance on the disk.

This folder is very badly managed by Windows: Many components it contains are never used in a particular system and could be deleted, the old versions of these components and other files can be safely deleted after several months, when the new versions work without any problem, there is no need to keep these files on the local machines anymore in our interconnected world, any component required for a new or changed hardware peripheral should be downloadable now, etc.

This folder is the main reason why I would never install Windows 7 on a SSD less than 128 GB. Also, if you install Windows on a small SSD and say, other big apps such as games on a secondary disk, I believe hard links don't work between disks, so I'm not sure what happens in that case.

 

[SpongeBob]

I'm not sure what you think needs "fixing" since the WinSxS folder is where the OS stores backup copies of most every file that gets installed by apps and the OS itself

Something that sits around collecting dust and uses up space is usually considered junk. So yeah I think it's broken since I have crap from 2006 taking up space and doing nothing. Anyone know if MS is working on something. I use OSX as well and no issues with anything not sure how they do this stuff? I think Linux doesn't have anything like this either.

 

[munkle]

Something that sits around collecting dust and uses up space is usually considered junk.

One man's junk is another mans treasure.

 

[Gilthanis]

Yeah right, and I suppose Windows XP has the biggest market share of them all (40+%) because it comes preinstalled in new PCs?

By your reasoning, Windows Vista has been reigning alone for 3 years before Windows 7 released and therefore should have at least twice more market share than Windows 7, which has been around for over a year.

The fact is that Vista was never willingly adopted, especially by the enterprise sector. Windows 7 already has twice as much market share (20+%) than Vista in less than half the time, so this indubitably proves that existing Vista users are making the switch, not just new computer buyers, who probably have a XP or Vista license already anyway, but choose not to reinstall it.

You should do your research before calling people ignorant. I have been programming since the first Microsoft PC OS was called PC-DOS...

XP's dominance is in fact due to 7 years on the market. (Also the primary MS OS during the fastest PC sales boom.) By far the longest running version. So, my reasoning does not suggest what you say exactly. It did take market share when it was first released in the same way as new installs with new PC's. And yes, it was hated just as bad or more then Vista when launched. (Though it didn't have the hardware support problems that Vista did.) Many companies did not jump on XP for quite some time. How many new systems purchased gives the option for ANY other choice but 7? Not many. Certainly not a significant market share. After all, the choice of something else is a major factor on market share as a whole. XP will continue to lose share because businesses don't have the option to slap it on their systems any more. Unless of course they have some weird licensing that is still valid. Same thing for Vista. Most businesses/people wont splurge extra bucks to go buy remaining copies of the now-outdated Vista when they already get 7 with the system. 7 is riding on Vista's coat tails considering Vista did all the hard work forcing the change/conversion from XP mentality. Think Service Pack 2 for XP. And, since 7 is newer and therefore supported longer, it will undoubtedly get all upgrades from those who lag behind on upgrading their systems (mainly businesses). None of what you say supports users upgrading from Vista to 7 as the primary market share shift. I'm more willing to believe the replacement of outdated XP machines and other (newer machines that purchased the XP downgrade during Vista release) are what is changing the majority market share. Thus a move from XP (or other Pre-Vista) OS. I will agree some will migrate from Vista, but I don't believe it is near as many as implied by your statement.

And, I can contest that many businesses downgraded their XP (pre-loaded from manufacturer) licenses to Win2k for quite a bit of XP's life. It wasn't until SP2 came out that many businesses began using it full swing. But, they still had the original XP license from purchase, which is what is actually used for those market share statistics.

Oh and not reigning...fighting for change for 3 years while finishing out XP's support cycle. 7 gets the free ride. And my reasoning did not imply numbers, so you are putting words into my text I did not type. Agreed that Vista was forced to adopt or at least prepare for the oncoming change. This only re-enforces that 7 holds its market share because of Vista's efforts. 7 would have had the same fate if launched in Vista's place due to what would have been the same hardware support problems. Your 20% number does not prove Vista users migrating. Only more copies of 7 being sold now then Vista or any other outdated MS OS. And I do my research with open eyes. You should try it some time.

 

[Chimel]

Thus a move from XP (or other Pre-Vista) OS.

What's wrong with you? Of course there's been a big switch from XP, everybody knows that, but why do you deny that many Vista users also migrated to Windows 7?

It's not just early adopters, many Vista users found for instance UAC a big pain for daily use (many just disabled it) and were happy to update their system to Windows 7, especially since any machine running Vista would run even better with Windows 7.

Even Microsoft who rushed Windows 7 so soon after Vista knew that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been from the start, it's actually officially Windows 6.1 when Vista is version 6.0. Basically it's Vista R2, as the plan after the Vista fiasco was to release a major Windows version every 4 years and a R2 version in-between. Eventually, only Server adopted these weird intermediate releases.