why you have to upgrade to windows 7 ?

[hbailla]

many people ask this big question : why do i have to upgrade to windows 7 ? so to answer to this we have to cover many points like , what's new in windows 7 ? what make windows 7 different to VISTA and XP ? so in this article i will cover some new features that make windows seven a special Operating system .

read the whole article here computer news: why you have to upgrade to windows 7 ?

 

[Ed Dixon]

Frankly I find these kind of articles insulting, as the few points it even discusses are either mostly irrelevant for upgrade users or misleading.
It also fails to mention that most upgrade users will lose some percentage of their hardware and software that will not work in Windows 7, aside from the fact that they will have to reinstall virtually every application they have ever used (assuming they even know where the install CD is located).

Ed

 

[cybercore]

Frankly I find these kind of articles insulting, as the few points it even discusses are either mostly irrelevant for upgrade users or misleading.

Yeah, this is all about trying to find advantages but not finding them really. Just how significantly will one's productivity be increased or made convenient of the easier Wi-Fi connection? Once used to connecting it in XP or Vista it's Ok already. Boot time? Nice try, perhaps not worth the cost of 7. And so on.

 

[Ed Dixon]

Change and progress are almost always good things, and things we really can't and shouldn't avoid. However most consumers who might consider upgrading their OS (by buying a upgrade package at say Wal-Mart) are not techies. Most know almost nothing about what’s inside the box, or what real issues they might have by upgrading.

So articles that discuss such upgrades should consider painting the entire picture, not just the rosy marketing image. My experience to date shows Win7 is not lite (it takes way more space), not fast, does not boot faster, and is no where near 100% compatible with what users already have on their XP systems. Win7 does have some cool features, but also some significant losses (like simple folders).

Ed

 

[john3347]

why do i have to upgrade to windows 7 ?

"why do i have to upgrade to windows 7 ?" The short and simple answer is, YOU DON"T !! You will soon be given the opportunity to, if you want to, but you don't have to. I am still running Windows 2000 on one computer because it runs programs and hardware that will not run on any current OS. I am still receiving security updates on it, too. XP and Vista will also have several years lifetime left if someone wants to keep XP or Vista. It is true that the availability of NEW , "store-bought" computers with any OS other than Windows 7 will eventually dry up, but that doesn't keep your old computer from doing exactly what it has been doing for however long you have had it. If you have a retail copy (not one that came preinstalled on a new computer) of whatever OS you prefer, you can continue to use it "'til the cows come home" if you wish. You can even install it on subsequent replacement computers if you remove it from the old computer and call Microsoft for a new installation key (if necessary).

If you feel that Windows 7 has something that will enhance your "computer experience" enough to be worth the cost, you WANT to upgrade, you don't HAVE to. Only a henpecked husband whose wife WANTS to upgrade HAS to upgrade.

Even asking the question, "Why do I have to upgrade to Windows 7?" simply has no merit.

 

[Ed Dixon]

Be that as it may or not isn't really @ the heart of things, @ least not for Ed. This is where I get mired. Ed seems to have a peculiar Windows 7 experience that impacts on perceptions such that he sees a grevious sin of omission. What is a ponder is his scenario seems, not only in total contrast to my own but, borderline unique. Install issues, including basic install time; compatability issues and Win7 32 being slow & 64-bit even moreso... Ed want 'warnings' about these issues, @ least. I would suggest these conditions would have to exist for a certain (substancial) number of Users & machines before such negatives should (as a public service) be included. I trust that seems like it might be a reasonable explanation why the writer didn't say "watch out for the following issues".

Given the title, the article wasn’t meant to be objective, but a sales pitch for Win7. In fact I have tried Win7 on 3 different systems with the same result on each, so it’s not so unique as you might think.

Each major OS upgrade from MS has had upgrade issues for hardware and software compatibility. This was true for both XP and Vista, and is not exactly a new thing for Win7. Those who have been part of the MS beta programs have seen more messages than their eyes can read on this subject and a dozen more.

The initial versions of XP were poor in this regard, which is why many waited to make the jump. As the service packs rolled in and the drivers got completed, it became a much more desirable OS. Vista was much worse, as beyond the drivers and H/W – S/W compatibility, it contained some glaring design decisions that mostly doomed it in many users eyes.

The folks at MS seemed to have learned some of their Vista lesson in Win7, as it has a much better start. It however also has it’s warts starting with a no upgrade install situation while still looking a lot like a Vista service pack, and some other stupid glaring software things.

When the dust settles, Win7 will likely be more of the success that Vista wasn’t. It may take longer than some believe, but at least at the core it seems a better OS than Vista.

Ed

 

[textureDnB]

you have to expect an OS two generations removed to be larger. Windows 95a couldn't even support HDD partitions larger than 4GB! Progress requires change progressing with any technology is not mandatory i know many people who don't even own a flat panel TV yet that doesn't mean CRT's are better or vice versa it simply shows that everyone has different needs and preferences.

The thing i can't understand is ED's compatibility and installation problems.I now have the RC on AMD systems Laptops both new and old. It even runs albeit without blazing speed on my old presario with a 2.7GHz CELERY and a GT 6400 PCI card (notice the lack of an e thats not a mistake the board is so old it is pre AGP) I currently run the RC on five systems and have only run into one unsolveable compatibility problem and that is a bottom of the barrel Veo webcam that was junk in Win 2000's heyday. I had to toss vista on my parents two month old AMD phenom X4 x64 because it wouldn't jive with anything, now it's running the RC flawlessly every program they used under XP now works when with Vista x64 i had barely 70 percent of what they needed working and much of that was shoehorned in and didn't work properly. It almost seems Ed that you must have some extremely odd hardware/software combos, bad installation media, or quite possibly just extraordinarily bad luck with which i can certainly sympathize.

 

[brucewilsonpa]

FWIW, I have been operating on Win7 as my production OS for several months -- currently have the RTM version installed on two computers and works flawlessly -- even have MS OFfice 2010 mondo working with very few hitches. In both cases I used the "upgrade" approach so I could keep basically the same software and setup -- aside from a couple of Lenovo thinkpad utilities it didn't like, my ThinkPad upgraded w/o any problems and is working as smoothily as it ever did on Vista or XP. My Samsung Q1U UMPC had no compatibility issues and upgraded easily and flawlessly. This experience and the nearly 100% positive experience I've had in going through 5-6 beta/RC upgrades convinced me that Win7 willl be a far easier upgrade for most people than Vista was. As for the OS performance its speed and ease of use (even in beta form) sold me very early on this being my choice OS.

 

[cybercore]

FWIW, I have been operating on Win7 as my production OS for several months -- currently have the RTM version installed on two computers and works flawlessly -- even have MS OFfice 2010 mondo working with very few hitches. In both cases I used the "upgrade" approach so I could keep basically the same software and setup -- aside from a couple of Lenovo thinkpad utilities it didn't like, my ThinkPad upgraded w/o any problems and is working as smoothily as it ever did on Vista or XP. My Samsung Q1U UMPC had no compatibility issues and upgraded easily and flawlessly. This experience and the nearly 100% positive experience I've had in going through 5-6 beta/RC upgrades convinced me that Win7 willl be a far easier upgrade for most people than Vista was. As for the OS performance its speed and ease of use (even in beta form) sold me very early on this being my choice OS.

I've used 7 for several months and got a similar impression. However, I do not feel it is so much faster than Vista x64, and also keep in mind you probably have fewer programs and fewer drivers installed on it, therefore fewer services, why 7 may behave "faster."


As for the thread's and article's title, not everyone will upgrade to 7 as there have been users who decided to skip Vista and there are users who'll skip 7 and stay with XP. Why ? Simple:

1. XP is compattible with most software, yet more compattible that vista/7
2. XP is fast enough
3. XP really lacks no serious features
4. No need of all that florid Aero with Vista or 7, neither of a number of other features like superfetch - if you're really working or gaming you don't have time for all those revolutionary briliances


So, one may want or not want to upgrade, just like buying a new car - maybe you'll buy it, maybe not.

Server 2008 Sp 2 x 64
7 Build 7201 x 64

 

[jws2346]

Egad, this is Earth callin' I've always looked at a lot of the "why do it" posts as maybe the OP wants to convince himself or herself (you know the old sayin' "misery loves company" It seems to me an individual in a position to upgrade OS's or install new software on his/her own computer (privately owned, not corporate owned) would probably be very careful and cautious about installing new OS's or software. They would read the many highly qualified reviews (not the gloom and doom, home made soap reviews made by unqualified and just plain ignorant posters ) They'd personally test the new software or new OS in their type of real world situations (like what they're gonna' use the software for) As with the case of Microsoft's Win7 operating system, it has had a beta and now has a RC. It'd be easy for anyone with an IQ above a box of rocks or a turnip green to evaluate whether they need or want the new OS. Believe me, I'm not critizising the many helpful reviews and information on this forum or any other forums, like the very informative posts by Radenight. I just think he's talkin' to the deef' (deaf) and dumb sometimes.

So IMHO what it all boils down to, if you want to upgrade to the new OS do it and if you don't have the proper equipment to upgrade, you can't afford to upgrade or for some reason you don't want to upgrade then please don't. I don't care and I don't think many people do.

Eagerly waiting on my pre orders of Win7 The only snag is, I have 4x compters (2x laptops and 2x Q6600 desktops) and I only pre ordered 2x copies

 

[deeperthink]

A better and clearer looking than Vista and greater capacity than XP

 

[hbailla]

thanks for your comment

Yes, oops, I meant to address the title of the article...

It can be taken as "One Should"; as if being told you must. I feel it, the title, is very badly worded due to the potential to give it that meaning. Certany the gentleman's point about 'free chioce' as to what OS & when, etc is absolutely true & valid... there is no obligation!! Comes by default w/ new OEMs but, the buyer knows that going in.

I feel the point they want taken away is "you'll want to cus these items will excite you" & go on to just give a few good points... teasers, if you will. If you want to promote something, draw in & excite people, you don't say negatives. The article is directed to the average, casual End User; for what & why it is, it is fine, in my opinion.

Be that as it may or not isn't really @ the heart of things, @ least not for Ed. This is where I get mired. Ed seems to have a peculiar Windows 7 experience that impacts on perceptions such that he sees a grevious sin of omission. What is a ponder is his scenario seems, not only in total contrast to my own but, borderline unique. Install issues, including basic install time; compatability issues and Win7 32 being slow & 64-bit even moreso... Ed want 'warnings' about these issues, @ least. I would suggest these conditions would have to exist for a certain (substancial) number of Users & machines before such negatives should (as a public service) be included. I trust that seems like it might be a reasonable explanation why the writer didn't say "watch out for the following issues".

Thank you for pointing out the flaw in the title.

Cheers,
Drew

I agree with you that the title isn't objective , but none can deny the fact that all points that i mentionned are declared by experts , in my next thread i will make the discussion more open .
Thank you all

 

[RogerG]

the article is hard to read. it's full of grammar errors.

 

[hbailla]

it's clear

the article is hard to read. it's full of grammar errors.

i'm not an english speaker , English is my third language , but i guess that the idea is clear.