Just installed Windows 7

[PAUL161]

Well, I just installed Windows 7 on my desk top and after using it for a while, I'm not that impressed. Oh it's pretty and has some nice features, but they changed some things in the photo department that I haven't figured out why, as there was nothing wrong with the previous photo system and for what it costs, 149 bucks for 3 machines, not worth the extra money in my book. I also use Trend Micro 2009 software and it won't run in 7 unless you download the 2010 upgrade. But, Microsoft will probably shut down the support for Vista in a few months, forcing more people in buying 7. I'm not sure if I'll put it in my lap top or not. Also, if you have Ultimate, as I do in my desk top, you have save all your files and do a total restore, adding all your photos and document files later, just like it was a new machine. In basic and home premium, it will save your files and when everything is done, your files and programs will have been automatically restored. <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Or so I'm told</span>.</span>

 

[NutmegCT]

Paul - did you install Win7 on a brand-new computer? Or was it running Vista or XP before?

I read on the MS Win7 site that if you install Win7 over XP, you have to re-install every single program you had on your computer. For me it was totally not worth the purchase or trouble.

If you have Vista on the machine, Win7 is supposed to install "cleanly" (?) over Vista.

Granted I'm rapidly entering old-fogey-dom ... but it seems to me that Win7 is great for playing around with or "starting over". But not so great for people who already have many applications they use frequently under XP.

Unless I'm just playing around with a spare computer, I can't justify getting Win7 and then hoping all my current apps will play nicely with it.

Tom
Runner-up for Curmudgeon of the Year, 1838.

 

[ObiRichKanobi]

I've been using Win7 for several months, first the RC 32 bit, and when the retail hit, the 64 bit. In Vista, I was having all kinds of freezing issues, especially with MS Office programs (go figure). Haven't had any since moving to Win7. Daughter was having the same problems with her laptop, and upgrading her seems to have resolved it, even though is was an upgrade and not clean install for her.

As far as whether you can do an "upgrade" or a clean install, a lot depends on what you're currently running. If you're using Vista, and are going from 32 to 32 bit or 64 to 64 bit, it's an upgrade. If going from XP to 7, it's a clean install. Likewise, if you're going from 32 to 64 bit, it's a clean install. Of course, this assumes that you have the upgrade versions; OEM versions don't have the upgrade option.

I got the three license upgrade of Home Premium at Sam's for like $125...For the $45 or so per computer, it was well worth it for me.

 

[tomshobby]

A Windows upgrade means that Microsoft is upgrading from old problems they cannot fix to new problems that they will not be able to fix. Oh, and we get to pay for the privilege.

 

[Steve_S]

I'll go the other way. I've had no problems with Windows 7 and have been most impressed with how well it is thought out and implemented. If all you're doing is web browsing and email then it really won't make a difference but I spend a lot of time on mine doing web work, photo manipulation, etc. I had no major problems with XP but 7 is flat out better in every way. It's the first MS operating system in a long time that I would say is as easy for novices to use as Mac OSX. Yet it has the power and flexibility that Windows is known for. Two thumbs up from me! I'll be upgrading another computer here soon, but waiting on the laptop until I replace the poor old thing.

 

[DrEntropy]

It's the first MS operating system in a long time that I would say is as easy for novices to use as Mac OSX. Yet it has the power and flexibility that Windows is known for. Two thumbs up from me!

All my gamer buds are over th' moon for it. I've only played with it so-far on their machines. I gotta say it's what Vista ~should~ have been. I'll stick with XP here for the ONE machine needing MS, when it dies the Win7 OEM will go on the 64 bit replacement machine.

I'll be stuffin' it onto a client's laptop next week, over top of Vista Biz. We'll see.

 

[NutmegCT]

I'll be stuffin' it onto a client's laptop next week, over top of Vista Biz. We'll see.

tsk - tsk ... I'd recommend karmic koala m'self

T.

 

[aerog]

In basic and home premium, it will save your files and when everything is done, your files and programs will have been automatically restored. <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Or so I'm told</span>.</span>

Right and wrong, but you're leaving out important information.

If you started with Vista-32 Ultimate and wanted to put Win-7 32 Ultimate on then you shouldn't need to do a clean install.

If you changed from 32-bit to 64-bit or 64-bit to 32-bit then you need a clean install, regardless of what you're upgrading from.

If you had Vista-Ultimate and wanted to upgrade to a lower version of Win-7 (ie: Pro, Home Premium, etc) then you have to do a clean install.

If you have to do a clean install and you store <span style="font-style: italic">everything</span> on one hard drive then, yeah, you need to make a back-up and move them back later. Honestly though - if you don't do that on a regularly basis <span style="font-style: italic">anyway</span> then you need to.

 

[TRDejaVu]

I did a Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Ultimate upgrade yesterday. Took about 1 1/2 hours with no issues whatsoever - a first for me going all the way back to Win 3.1 days. So far every program is running without any problems and I have many that can be quirky - a bit like our LBCs.

Still finding out the differences, but I agree with the "what Vista should have been" thought.

 

[PAUL161]

Paul - did you install Win7 on a brand-new computer? Or was it running Vista or XP before?

I read on the MS Win7 site that if you install Win7 over XP, you have to re-install every single program you had on your computer. For me it was totally not worth the purchase or trouble.

If you have Vista on the machine, Win7 is supposed to install "cleanly" (?) over Vista.

Granted I'm rapidly entering old-fogey-dom ... but it seems to me that Win7 is great for playing around with or "starting over". But not so great for people who already have many applications they use frequently under XP.

Unless I'm just playing around with a spare computer, I can't justify getting Win7 and then hoping all my current apps will play nicely with it.

Tom
Runner-up for Curmudgeon of the Year, 1838.

No it isn't a brand new machine Tom. It's a 3 year old duel core 32 bit HP with duel 300 HDs, and a ton of memory along with Vista ultimate in it. I will say this, I hated Vista when I first started using it, but now I have it in three machines and I have no issues with it other than all of it's so called safety features that makes you feel like your in computer prison. I also back up my desk top computer once a week on an external HD, the lap tops on disk, which has paid off a few times.
I also have Linux on the big machine and if most of the windows programs would work in it, I wouldn't even have Windows installed. Linux is progressing pretty fast in making it much more user friendly. It is faster. Kinda reminds me of climbing out of a station wagon (Windows) and jumping into a sports car (Linux). It's just a new learning experience. For those who start out with Linux, I don't think they'd ever change over. JMHO.PJ

 

[aerog]

There's an annoying slow-down inflicted by Kaspersky that pops up when people switch to KAV2010 when upgrading to Win7. I thought it was my software slowing down when using a common dialog box for directory access.

Which brings about the point that Windows Security Essentials seems pretty decent <span style="font-style: italic">anyway</span> :wink:

 

[DrEntropy]

I'll be stuffin' it onto a client's laptop next week, over top of Vista Biz. We'll see.

tsk - tsk ... I'd recommend karmic koala m'self

T.

If these folk were a bit less dependent on Outlook I think they'd actually be okay with Linux on the 'book. I put together a Linux server for 'em a few years ago and they are absolutely in love with it. An engineering firm, the principal is my best word-of-mouth advertising. When he gets in a discussion about computer issues with other business owners he laughs at 'em for spending funds on Microsoft server warez and upkeep, then rubs it in 'cause HIS server uptime is now measured in years, with NO problems.