Do I change vista to XP or win 7?

[arad85]

It seems that all the folk intent on installing as many programs as possible and updating everything they have as soon as they can are the folk running into problems. If I installed the other twelve programs that you have and I don't would mine be as slow as yours?

Am I missing something?

Dennis

No, it's not (necessarily) the updates causing things to run slow. Nor is it installing lots of software (that used to be a problem with 98, but not so much with XP). Things that tend to slow the system down are lots of addins for Firefox/Internet Explorer (if you want to see a browser run quickly, install Google Chrome), bad choice of anti-virus software (some are far more efficient than others) having multiple things doing the same thing (e.g. having a firewall such as ZoneAlarm and also leaving Windows Firewall on), having context menu addins - for example things that tell you what a file contains when you hover over it. A fragmented disk (how many people defrag their disks?) doesn't help either. Most of these things get swept aside when you do a fresh install which is why it always seems faster once you do one. Personally, I've been running XP for 7 years on one machine (I did reinstall it when I moved it from my main machine to a server machine but that was the only time) acts as the home server, and only ever needs rebooting when I add/update software. I have another which has been built a year on XP and again only needs rebooting when new s/w gets installed. Both machines are on 24/7 and are certainly fast enough compared to when they were first built. I will eventually upgrade to Win7, once there are a few more months of stability there (I also run on XP64 so need 64bit drivers for one machine - this is holding me back for that one where 64bit support seems to be less forthcoming).

@TheThing. What don't you like about 7? It's essentially the same interface as Vista but with a few things cleared up, much faster to do things correctly like recognise the local network you are on and seems generally quicker to boot apps. It also seems to be more logically organised compared to Win7...

[Neutrino]

You can still try 7 for free, it will work as normal until some time in March, all you need is a key (which they have stopped giving out) pm me if you need one. Then in March you can decide which route to take.

[davew]

Regarding the transfer of licences. It depends what the OS is. If it's OEM, you may not be able to transfer.

IE, when I rebuilt a desktop some time ago, I tried to actuate the usual way. It wouldn't let me. I had to phone MS and explain that I had a duff motherboard and changed it. The rep said he would give a new code as a one off. The OEM licence is tied to the machine you first use.

Just be aware of this if you part with money for an old Lappy.

Dave

[Psychobilly]

If you like Vista you want sectioning...lol

Yep taht's me then...

Possibly Finest piece of Bloatware ever written Give it the Resources though and I quite like it...

[arad85]

but it's become popular to knock Vista.

No, it's always been popular to knock Vista. In fact, you are one of the few people I know (well, I don't, but you know what I mean) who actually like it. And I work around computers for my day job too...

I think the reason XP is liked is because it's had 9 years in the field to iron out all the bugs - people are experienced with it. 7 seems to be the first OS that Microsoft have got right from the beginning, so credit where credits due IMHO.

As to Microsoft bashing, well, they've been tamed a bit recently with anti trust suits (recently dropped in Europe for IE) which effectively stifle competition. Now the likes of google, mozilla and (to a certain extent) social networking sites such as Facebook have a good foothold/are more popular than the Microsoft equivalent, people are less worried about the competition side of things... All IMHO of course

[NickH]

Ah, so you believe the press.... Not long ago it was popular to 'knock' Microsoft full stop. Now XP and 7 are acceptable, but it's become popular to knock Vista. Seems to be a fickle world to me.

I've had Vista on two machines and never had any problems with it at all. I have XP on two machines and there is really no difference. That's just experience and you can't argue with someone's experience. You can disagree with it, as you are entitled to do, but you can't argue with it.

No, I develop and test software...for a living. for the worlds largest musical instrument developer..and Vista sucks

I have multiple dev mates at MS, some with up to 30 years development experience working on a wide range of platforms, who would rather code in objective C, than work with Vista.. all my test team also think it sucks... I have dev mates at multiple software companies, some of whom I regard as the best software developers in the world... who think it sucks.. all the tech savvy and very knowledgeable websites who test it think it sucks...all the PC press think it sucks...

Some people like it...that's fine, as an OS it's appalling... but the eye candy is nice...looks like they actually built, with Win7, something which works.

A trabant will get you from A-B....you cannot argue with that either..

Sunny delight will quench your thirst... and the Daily Mail will bring you news headlines...

Never been defensive over a product, even ones I developed/designed etc... some people like some stuff, that's their perogative...I just go for technical fact...and whilst it does work for people...anyone with any real hardcore knowledge of computers and operating systems generally (and not all!) think it sucks

[NickH]

anyway...the question was, what OS... and it's up to the original poster to decide... and if it's Vista and it works...great...no great shakes...

I'll get my beard and sandles on now :-) and continue looking at stack traces for exceptions..

[MishMich]

Hi Dennis.

I have not installed them on XP (or Vista). I have installed them on Win 7. I did that because I needed to see which would work, and which I wanted to use - no way of doing that without installing them. Other than the Astronomy software, I use all of them, of the Astronomy software, I use 4, although I am now trying to use Iris (& if that doesn't satisfy my, I will go for Astro Art or Maxim DL, eventually).

My experience is not that installing software slows down PC's. Having several applications open at once slows PC's down. Having things load automatically on start-up slows PC's down. I recently installed XP on a PC because I needed to use the serial port to upload updates to a Celestron NexStar hand-controller, and it didn't work via the USB port with an adapter, so I needed to do it via the serial port direct to 'prove' it was a faulty hand-controller (it was faulty).

I was taken aback at how fast XP ran when I first installed it. It took two days to download and install all the service packs and updates for XP from Microsoft. By then, the PC was running like a dog. What slows up XP is not necessarily the software you install, but five years of Microsoft fixes to it. One of the problems with Windows is that it has a legacy of code borrowed from MS.DOS, VMS, UNIX, some of which is 30 years old. With each release it has become more bloated, and required faster CPU's and more memory - which has been a symbiotic development alongside faster PC's with more memory. The thing that slows down Windows the most is Windows itself.

Poorly written apps will slow it down, but I haven't used 'freeware' on Windows for many years - I use pukka applications. I have tended to use Linux for other stuff, as the sort of software written for Linux tends to work much better on that than the equivalent on Windows.

However, once I found I needed astronomy applications, it was a different matter - fewer run on Linux, and those that do are often buggy, or have to be run under Wine (which I cannot stand), and not all will run under Wine. I also found that of those that do run on Linux, the chances are the hardware (e.g. imaging devices) you are trying to use them with won't have drivers for Linux. I was quite surprised, as I'd have thought that Astronomy and Linux would be a dream team - but it seems there is very little about. Apart from my need for Word, the only reason I am continuing to use Windows is so I can use any astronomical software I might need - and I am still finding out which I prefer. One thing I discovered that has been a bonus for me is that Gimp works on Windows now. I love Gimp, it is such a great package, and I have been using it on Linux for nearly five years - I just wish they would bring out the 16-bit colour version, and I had time to figure out how to do some of the things Noel's actions do on Photoshop (which reduce everything to 8-bit colour) in Gimp - then I wouldn't need to use Photoshop Elements any more.

Sometimes you need several different apps, because they don't all do the same thing. I've yet to figure out de-interlacing in PSE - in Gimp it is pretty straighforward. Similarly, I don't like PSE's unsharp mask, I prefer Gimp's. I've yet to manage to stack a DSO image in Registax successfully, in DSS it is not an issue. Stellarium is a great package to look at from the armchair, but in the dark, I'd prefer to be using something a bit less 'graphic' that I can stick a red filter over the screen and still see what is going on. Different horses for different courses.

As I said - Windows 7 runs fine, even with all these installed. Windows XP runs like a dog without anything installed apart from the stuff downloaded from Microsoft update.

M.

[NickH]

Well penned..

Memory leaks, poor code standards etc... people should be strung up for some of the code they put out.. from a usability , UX, and dev standpoint..

Just looking at some code where 17 calls are being made instead of the 1 actually needed... most of the devs I work with hate the test team...(common), as we pull their stuff to shreds...however, generally on projects I work on, it gets a result...may take more time to get it right...but it generally works way faster than it would had we not intervened.

[MishMich]

You cannot polish a t*rd. Windows was sh*t from day one. Some Windows worked better than others. But rest assured, maybe in six months, maybe in twelve, maybe two years, something will be unearthed in Windows 7 that involves service packs and updates to fix, and it will start going the way of other Windows. One of the SPs will be a disaster, and another SP will rescue it, so it has always been, and so it will be. That is because it is Windows, and while you may be able to clean a house's windows, you cannot polish a t*rd.

M.

[NickH]

ROFL

Good story.. my mum, in her mid 60s got her first PC in March, I got her an ASUS900 with Linux on it (the very simple UI distro), now...bearing in mind she's never used a PC ever before...I have not had one "tech support" call from her...ever...she does her word docs, accounts, web surfing, emailing etc.. and it boots in seconds. I rebuilt one with the install USB method and it took under an hour to get it completely redone and working/connected etc

We have IT support people who can spend an entire day rebuilding Visual Studio installs, or Windows machines

I wanted a Mac back in the days of yore, but cost (Quadra 950s were extortionate)... stopped me...and ended up with Windows... hated 3.1, hated 95, 98 not much better, ME...made Vista look good, XP...worked, had flaws, but worked...NT lovely....but driver issues, and then Vista crawled along...

Just now want for personal use, tools which do the job well...hence two netbooks running XP run the observatory setup and one desktop/more powerful laptop running XP run everything else.. have multiple machines running 7,Vista, XP, MacOS etc in work... and of all of them, the ones running 7 (the meaty ones) do work rather well, but you're right, something or someone at MS will no doubt munge it up..

[MishMich]

The post you responded to was deleted, I am afraid, because the starred words I used were considered profane. I apologise for that. All I was saying was that Windows has always been poor, ever since 3.1, and words along the lines of "you can't make a purse out of a sow's ear". The problem is that 3.1 was a 16-bit OS originally built on the back of MS.DOS, which itself was copied from 8-bit CPM, and was hacked up to 32 bit through 95, 98 & 2000. Much of NT was copied from VMS, and Gates got hold of a lot of legacy code from UNIX labs when he bought up SCO. So, through 2000 and XP he tried to pull together these diverse elements to establish an OS based on 3.1 & 3.11 & NT. Quite a feat, TBH, to try and have backwards compatibility with two such diverse streams. XP was quite good, but the years did take their toll. The way MS.DOS went was that some versions were OK, and others were appalling, and needed fixing - this continued with Windows. So, one release would be OK, and another hopeless. Even in terms of service packs, one would be a nightmare, then another would fix it. I have no doubt that 7 will be the same - eventually some problem will turn up, and there will be a string of updates, then an SP to fix it, and one of the SP's will be a nightmare, and then another will fix it, until eventually we all have to buy Windows 8. That is the way it always has been, and that is the way it always will be. The best people will be shifted off Windows 7 to work on Windows 8, and the people left supporting Windows 8 will be less experienced and write poorer code, and then it will start to bloat, slow down, etc.

One of the things I found would consistently speed up any version of Windows was to avoid having an image on the desktop background and not to use a screen saver. I switched from Norton to McAfee a few years ago, because with Norton XP nearly ground to a halt, and I found that was the only way to get it running again. I use the 60-day trial that came with Windows 7, and it doesn't seem to be like it was - but as soon as the trial is over I'll be installing McAfee. I'd used Norton for at least ten years, I'll not be going back to it after that.

M.

[solarwallace]

Are work scrapping any old lappys running XP? Look for one in the paper going free... Doesn't need to be anything special, just come with the licence. You then phone Msoft up and transfer the licence. The licence can be put on any machine as it is thats what you own. It's not tied (other than in an activation key) to any particular piece of hardware.

If it's an OEM license e.g. one that came with a machine, then it's tied to that machine technically speaking. If the copy of XP is a retail copy, then you can move it.

There's also a difference between the retail and OEM media, so your OEM key won't work with the retail media and via-versa.

7 is basically an improved Vista. Vista has now had so many patches applied it's a pretty usable OS.

A fresh install of 7 does use more resources than a fresh install of XP (not the other way around as someone previously stated. That's why XP will run in 256MB of memory (which 7 won't). There's a lot of hype about 7 at the moment. This may be down to users wiping old installs of XP (with all the junk that slows it down over time), and doing a fresh install of 7. In that case 7 would be faster as long as you have enough memory e.g. 1GB usable minimum or 2GB preferred.

I can't comment on which software would or wouldn't work with 7 as I moved to Mac OSX at home and although my day job involves working with 7 it doesn't involve astronomy software.

Personally I would be inclined to stick with XP if you're not sure about the compatibility of your software as that's all it really comes down to. Having said that, 7 should be more secure.

In summary, as long as your software works, either will do the job. Helpful eh?

Regards

Steve

[anthony]

Spot on Steve. Thanks!

[Marmite]

There is almost nothing, maybe actually nothing, to justify the existence of Vista, aside from Microsoft's upgrade-cycle-driven revenue stream.

As much as some try to deny it, Windows 7 really is nothing more than a Vista service pack. Under the hood it's still just Vista.

The base install of Windows 7 is at least twice the size of WinXP. It's no "zippier" than XP on new hardware, and XP runs rings around Win7 on older hardware.

Then of course there's the compatibility issues: Many or most astro applications I currently run on a WinXP platform are unsupported - won't install, or won't run - on Win7. But all work just fine on my XP machines. (Obviously.)

When the time comes to completely upgrade your hardware, and there are tons of fully-compatible 64bit hardware and astronomy apps around, then it will probably be time to ditch XP. But certainly not just yet.

[johninderby]

There is almost nothing, maybe actually nothing, to justify the existence of Vista, aside from Microsoft's upgrade-cycle-driven revenue stream.

As much as some try to deny it, Windows 7 really is nothing more than a Vista service pack. Under the hood it's still just Vista.

The base install of Windows 7 is at least twice the size of WinXP. It's no "zippier" than XP on new hardware, and XP runs rings around Win7 on older hardware.

Then of course there's the compatibility issues: Many or most astro applications I currently run on a WinXP platform are unsupported - won't install, or won't run - on Win7. But all work just fine on my XP machines. (Obviously.)

When the time comes to completely upgrade your hardware, and there are tons of fully-compatible 64bit hardware and astronomy apps around, then it will probably be time to ditch XP. But certainly not just yet.

Totally the opposite to my experience with upgrading from XP to Win7.

John

[Rob]

XP Pro... I will not go near Windows 7 until the first Service pack arrives!!.. let others live beta test it

[MishMich]

I agree John, not my experience either - I'd be interested in knowing what doesn't work. What is support? Have I been missing out on something.

M.

[Ibbo!]

I have nothing to add to the 7 Vista debate

I'm still running XP and will continue for a bit longer yet

I've been using my 98 PC tonight and is it slow

I think its steam driven

its got old word and excel for mail merge and thats about it

I have a B&W laser printer that has no drivers for anything above 98 and toner cartridges to last me for about another 10 years (they were cheap) so its worth the effort

Steve

[johninderby]

Question

As there does seem to be differences in users experiences, which version of Win 7 are you using? I'm getting the impression that the most positive opinions are coming from those using WIN 7 Professional and Ultimate.

Is the Home version more limited than the specs would lead you to believe?

John

[russ]

The Home version works a dream for me. I personally have no need for WinXP mode or any of the other features in the pricier versions. Yet to have a program that fails to run or crash. I'm using the 64bit version in two machines.

Dare i say that i had no issues with Vista Home 32bit either. Saying that as quietly as possible so not to anger the locals....

Russ

[MishMich]

Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit that came with on laptop.

Windows 7 Home Premium 32 bit upgrade on (Vista) PC.

I've not had a 'Professional' version of Windows for some years, and don't miss it. Can't see the point of the additional cost to upgrade what came with Laptop, and with the upgrade pack I can update my two Vista PCs and my partner's laptop for about £100 (these were purchased after suppliers had stopped selling PCs with XP, unfortunately, otherwise they would be running XP).

I tend to agree about XP, though - if it is already on a PC and works OK, not sure there is any need to upgrade it. It will be supported by Microsoft until 2014.

M.

[solarwallace]

The pro version etc. are designed to connect to a Windows domain. Yes they have a few other features as well but you don't really need them.

Stick to Home Premium if you do go down the Windows 7 route.

Regards

Steve

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Ah, so you believe the press.... Not long ago it was popular to 'knock' Microsoft full stop. Now XP and 7 are acceptable, but it's become popular to knock Vista. Seems to be a fickle world to me.

I've had Vista on two machines and never had any problems with it at all. I have XP on two machines and there is really no difference. That's just experience and you can't argue with someone's experience. You can disagree with it, as you are entitled to do, but you can't argue with it.

Your first remark is rather beside the point, is it not.

I very much work in a Linux/UNIX shop, but I do develop cross-platform code (my code compiles without change on Windows/Mac OS-X/Linux/Unix/Irix). I have a PhD student running (wrong: WALKING) Vista on a very decent piece of hardware. This is not a matter of prejudice, this is an observation. I am talking timing the performance on several tasks, such as compiling and linking a moderately large program.

Both OpenSUSE 10.3/11.2 and Windows XP run like a shot, on an older machine with half the specs. Again, just observations here, no prejudice. As SPs progress, XP does slow down, though a fresh install can help. I have heard good reports about W7, but reserve judgement until I see it myself.

Vista may run well on many seriously high end machines, especially in terms of memory, but I do not see why I should need more memory and CPU grunt than the Cray Y-MP supercomputer of yesteryear, just to be able to write a letter or surf the web.

[NickH]

THANK YOU...another dev type speaks the truth.