Jump to content

Build Theme!
  •  
  • Infected?

Welcome to What the Tech - Register now for FREE

A community of volunteers who share their knowledge, and answer your tech questions. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message, and all ads will be removed once you have signed in.

Create an Account Login to Account


Photo

windows 7


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 MobileMania

MobileMania

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Interests:Knowing about advanced Technologies

Posted 22 June 2010 - 11:58 AM

Suppose i have got windows XP on my system currently and i want to replace it with windows 7. Is that simple to do it? Should i just insert the CD in and let the operating system installed? or there are some complications i have to keep in mind.

#2 Jimbo1

Jimbo1

    Preacher / Computer Tech

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,451 posts
  • Interests:Serving the Lord and Riding motorcycles and computers.

Posted 22 June 2010 - 12:09 PM

Suppose i have got windows XP on my system currently and i want to replace it with windows 7. Is that simple to do it? Should i just insert the CD in and let the operating system installed?

or there are some complications i have to keep in mind.



Well this is what I would do.

1. Run this first to be sure everything you have can run Windows 7

http://www.microsoft...de-advisor.aspx

2. If your system can, then you have to decide of which way to go with 7 and what Version of 7, PRO, Prem, Ultimate and then 32 bit or 64 bit.
A. Clean install, wipeing out the hard drive and starting from scratch, keep in mind you may have to install some of your drivers for your system and do a back up of saved files or,

B. Buy the upgrade CD and hope it goes well. May be best to be sure you have a clean system thats not infected before upgrading.

Some folks in the past perfered clean installs over upgrades IMO, this is how I have always done it.

3. Do a lot of reading of the pro's and con's over Clean install vers upgrading.

This is my input, the choise will have to be up to you.

Edited by Jimbo1, 22 June 2010 - 12:14 PM.


#3 Digerati

Digerati

    Built, broke, fixed, learned.

  • Tech Team
  • 3,398 posts
  • MVP

Posted 22 June 2010 - 02:17 PM

Some folks in the past perfered clean installs over upgrades

You have no choice when coming from XP, you have to do a clean install, but it can be done with an upgrade disk.

http://windows.micro...xp-to-windows-7

#4 Lee

Lee

    Occasional Tech

  • Visiting Tech
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,522 posts

Posted 24 June 2010 - 12:58 AM

Go clean install. If you want to go duel boot: Have XP installed first, then install 7. The W7 boot loader will auto recognize the XP install and give the option to choose which OS at start up. The Xp boot loader is not "sophisticated" enough to recognize 7 and give an OS option. Again, install XP first then Windows7. Please remember though that you might not like W7 after the initial "gee wizz". There is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on with W7. It still has Explorer 8, no Outllook Express (replaced by the bloatware windows live) and far less user control over set up. Faster? See smoke and mirrors comment or please direct me to an actual technical comparison because the ones I have seen say XP is faster! 'Percieved' better speed is no more than subjective hype from dazeled users (smoke and mirrors can do that very well). For games W7 has a FPS limiter that XP doesn't have but has direct 10 ..or is it 11? (big deal). Eye candy? You bet! I have duel XP pro. and W7 pro. and personaly, after an initial fascination with W7, I spend all my time now back on XP. In fact I'm thinking of taking W7 out. It's mainly overblown hype (with a few extra but useless gimicky features that mostly we turn off). W7 requires more power and ram with little to show for it and apart from the eye candy the new 7 doesn't do it better. It's a a big yawn.

Edited by Tathra, 24 June 2010 - 01:38 AM.


#5 MobileMania

MobileMania

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Interests:Knowing about advanced Technologies

Posted 24 June 2010 - 04:57 AM

i am not looking for a dual boot, i just want to replace windows xp altogether win 7. thanks guys but i guess i need to wait and read a bit before going for it :)

#6 Digerati

Digerati

    Built, broke, fixed, learned.

  • Tech Team
  • 3,398 posts
  • MVP

Posted 24 June 2010 - 08:00 AM

i guess i need to wait and read a bit before going for it

Oh? What further questions do you have? As noted by Jimbo, you need to make sure your current hardware will support this modern OS. And as noted, when coming from XP, you have no choice but to do a clean install. And as you noted, you don't want dual boot so that makes this very much less complicated.

I am afraid I have to disagree with the smoke and mirrors comment. I think Win 7 is much more open about what it does and does not do. There is a learning curve when coming from XP as there are some significant changes in the "look and feel" but if you have worked with Vista, the curve is much less steep.

please direct me to an actual technical comparison because the ones I have seen say XP is faster!

http://www.zdnet.com...ows-xp-sp3/3187

As far as speed perception - I don't think that is a fair statement. True, if you do a google search, you will see that in many cases, XP outperforms Win 7 in many areas - many, but not all. But to my "unfair" comment, note these were all made in 2009 and often with pre-release versions of Windows 7.

Gamers are often the ones to complain about speed. I don't find that surprising either. Game developers have had 10 years with XP to tweak their games. Microsoft has had 10 years to tweak XP. Also note that these comparisons are typically done on machines that were designed to run XP. What's wrong with that? Well, XP was designed over 10 years ago, and it was designed to support DOS-era hardware. Windows 7 was designed to support today's hardware and today's computing (and security) environment. I also note that many of the test were don't with antiquated 32-bit versions of the OS and benchmarking programs. Why is that significant? Because hardware has supported 64-bit for years but the software industry as been shuffling their feet. Fortunately, 64-bit is finally catching on (I suspect because 128 is lurking around the corner).

I also note that performance has much to do with drivers - and certainly AMD, nVidia, and other hardware makers are, and will continue to make improvements there too - especially in the 64-bit arena.

Yes, for Win7 to run full speed, it likes lots of RAM, a decent CPU, and a good graphics solution - in other words, Win 7 likes to run on current hardware, not legacy stuff that should have been retired, not "upgraded".

#7 Jimbo1

Jimbo1

    Preacher / Computer Tech

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,451 posts
  • Interests:Serving the Lord and Riding motorcycles and computers.

Posted 24 June 2010 - 11:24 AM

i guess i need to wait and read a bit before going for it

Oh? What further questions do you have? As noted by Jimbo, you need to make sure your current hardware will support this modern OS. And as noted, when coming from XP, you have no choice but to do a clean install. And as you noted, you don't want dual boot so that makes this very much less complicated.

I am afraid I have to disagree with the smoke and mirrors comment. I think Win 7 is much more open about what it does and does not do. There is a learning curve when coming from XP as there are some significant changes in the "look and feel" but if you have worked with Vista, the curve is much less steep.

please direct me to an actual technical comparison because the ones I have seen say XP is faster!

http://www.zdnet.com...ows-xp-sp3/3187

As far as speed perception - I don't think that is a fair statement. True, if you do a google search, you will see that in many cases, XP outperforms Win 7 in many areas - many, but not all. But to my "unfair" comment, note these were all made in 2009 and often with pre-release versions of Windows 7.

Gamers are often the ones to complain about speed. I don't find that surprising either. Game developers have had 10 years with XP to tweak their games. Microsoft has had 10 years to tweak XP. Also note that these comparisons are typically done on machines that were designed to run XP. What's wrong with that? Well, XP was designed over 10 years ago, and it was designed to support DOS-era hardware. Windows 7 was designed to support today's hardware and today's computing (and security) environment. I also note that many of the test were don't with antiquated 32-bit versions of the OS and benchmarking programs. Why is that significant? Because hardware has supported 64-bit for years but the software industry as been shuffling their feet. Fortunately, 64-bit is finally catching on (I suspect because 128 is lurking around the corner).

I also note that performance has much to do with drivers - and certainly AMD, nVidia, and other hardware makers are, and will continue to make improvements there too - especially in the 64-bit arena.

Yes, for Win7 to run full speed, it likes lots of RAM, a decent CPU, and a good graphics solution - in other words, Win 7 likes to run on current hardware, not legacy stuff that should have been retired, not "upgraded".



Good point Digerati

I have been one of those old die horse xp user and you have to yank it out of my dead hands before I would switch to vista or 7 for the fact, but as of late I bought me a new lab top and it had vista on it and yes I hated it, so I installed 7 and TBH i was impressed of how well it ran, and yes it was faster than xp and no problem with live mail, liked 7 so much as I upgrade this pc with a new mb, I will be upgrading to 7 also.

I thought I would never leave xp but the fact is I will say by by. XP was a work horse and still is, but lets face the facts it's outdated with current times and it is time to let it sail away in the sunset.

Edited by Jimbo1, 24 June 2010 - 11:26 AM.


#8 Digerati

Digerati

    Built, broke, fixed, learned.

  • Tech Team
  • 3,398 posts
  • MVP

Posted 24 June 2010 - 11:33 AM

I never migrated to Vista because I did not feel it was a mature product. Win 7 is what Vista should have been. I agree that XP is woefully outdated - especially in terms of security and that alone is reason to get with the times.

#9 Lee

Lee

    Occasional Tech

  • Visiting Tech
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,522 posts

Posted 24 June 2010 - 04:09 PM

Oh dear, I certainly seem to have run headlong into a few serious W7 affectionados here :smack: Like I said, Ido run duel boot XP/W7 and there is nothing outdated about my pc hardware. I just believe W7 has a bit of a way to go and a lot of software and drivers still have a bit of catching up to do. By then we will probably have W8 :notworthy: What I would love to see that would be truly innovative, would be a superior OS to XP that only required half the power! We have a serious and growing energy problem but these big Multinationals don't give a hoot. As long as their (Asian) factories keep churning out 'stuff'. Look at TV's. Everyone racing out to get a nw plasma (that uses 5 times the power) and all those perfectly good tube TV's ending up in landfill. True innovation missed a turn somewhere I think.

#10 Ztruker

Ztruker

    WTT Tech

  • Tech Team
  • 7,106 posts
  • Interests:Helping people fix MS Windows related computer problems of all kinds.

    Good, inexpensive wine (not an oxymoron).

Posted 24 June 2010 - 08:12 PM

I loved XP and was very wary of moving to Win 7 until I spent some time playing with RC1. I moved to Win 7 Pro X64 on a 3.4 Ghz, 4GB Dell system with lots of drive space and I would never, ever go back. XP looks and feels like Win 98 did once I moved to XP. Yep, I like the Win 7 eye candy. Surprised me. Fast, yes, but Win 98 was a lot faster than XP also. I think the Win 98 to XP and XP to Win 7 analogy is reasonable. I have Win 7 doing what I want now and like XP, once it's tweaked as I like it, it's a very good OS. When I need XP, I start Sun Virtual Box and run my XP (or Win 98 or Ubunto Linux or Linux Mint). Performance is good and I can cut and paste between the host and the client. I use XP mostly for working out responses to problems posted here at WTT.

#11 Lee

Lee

    Occasional Tech

  • Visiting Tech
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,522 posts

Posted 25 June 2010 - 12:03 AM

Yep Ztrucker. the 98/XP analogy is a good one. I'm waiting for the Vista service pack 2 ...W8 (service pack 1 was W7). I hate the task bar and system tray on W7 and I really would like to have the option of 'pin to start menu' on all programs, not just the ones W7 allows. I'm sure there are reg. hacks for both of these issues, but I'm not up with them yet.. I'd also like to rename a few things, like 'files' instead of "libraries" because that is what they really are and also get back 'Add and remove programs" because it means exactly what it says etc. etc. infinitum!

#12 Lee

Lee

    Occasional Tech

  • Visiting Tech
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,522 posts

Posted 25 June 2010 - 12:25 AM

I'm wondering what this little service pack 2 sucker is going to cost? :woot: And hey Jimbo, the Znet comparo (OMG ..Zed net??? ..just one of the biggest spam merchants on the net. Ever tried to unsubscribe from that mob?) between XP pro and W7 is about as biased as you can get.. An 'independent' comparo eh? Lol, Lol !

Edited by Tathra, 25 June 2010 - 12:50 AM.


#13 MobileMania

MobileMania

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Interests:Knowing about advanced Technologies

Posted 25 June 2010 - 03:41 AM

i got a bit confused after reading some replies but NO now i am again motivated and can't wait to install it on my system. just need to get windows CD

#14 Digerati

Digerati

    Built, broke, fixed, learned.

  • Tech Team
  • 3,398 posts
  • MVP

Posted 25 June 2010 - 07:47 AM

I just believe W7 has a bit of a way to go and a lot of software and drivers still have a bit of catching up to do.

Oh? What more do you expect an operating system to do?

It is too easy, but frankly, misguided to blame Microsoft and Windows 7 for deficiencies in software and especially drivers. Unless you are speaking specifically of Microsoft produced software, it is the software makers who need to step up to the plate, not MS. How many years do you want to give these "3rd-party" developers to do that?

That said, I personally have only one piece of software that won't run in Win7 and that is the old DOS era Calendar Creator program that came on floppies (a Win 7 version is available, however). And drivers are exclusively the hardware maker's responsibility so putting the onus on MS for drivers is totally unjust - more so when you consider Win7 drivers are based on the Vista driver database - and Vista came out when? 5 years ago!

And I've said this many times before, but I think it worth repeating now - Microsoft got slammed big time (for a decade +) for XP weighing legacy hardware and software support over security. This was even though MS did that because they listened to their client base who whined and cried they did not want to be forced to spend $millions upgrading hardware and custom software applications, as they did when migrating from DOS to Windows 3.x, and from 3.x to 95/98/SE. Then something called the "World Wide Web" took off and the badguys moved in - but instead of blaming the badguys, MS bashers and the biased IT press blamed MS.

Microsoft wanted to put AV capabilities into XP. But Norton, McAfee, CA, and the other big players whined and cried and convinced our wimpy elected officials in Congress and the EU that MS was trying to rule the world and run them out of business, claiming it was their job to rid the world of malware. But surprise! That did not happen. Gee! Did anyone think to wonder what incentive Norton and McAfee have to rid the world of malware? :pullhair: The answer of course is, "none"! That would put them out of business. But again, who gets blamed for the security environment we are in? Not the badguys! :(

So with Win 7, MS finally made the [correct] decision that security must come first. Actually, this move started with XP SP3, IE7, the purchase and free release of Windows Defender (originally Giant Antispyware) and cumulated with the releases of Win7 and IE8, as well as an enhanced MSE. But what happens now? The MS bashers and biased IT press once again blame MS for not supporting legacy stuff again - citing case after case of users upgrading old equipment had problems installing Win7.

I'm all for bashing MS and Windows when due and I've done my share of it. But not when it is unjust. Windows 7 is a modern OS designed to take advantage of today's hardware and operate safely in today's security environment (assuming the user practices safe computing). And for 100s of millions of Windows 7 users, it is doing just that.

And FTR, it was me that referenced ZNet.

#15 Ztruker

Ztruker

    WTT Tech

  • Tech Team
  • 7,106 posts
  • Interests:Helping people fix MS Windows related computer problems of all kinds.

    Good, inexpensive wine (not an oxymoron).

Posted 25 June 2010 - 06:50 PM

I was not to crazy about the Win 7 SuperBar either, so I brought back the XP style QuickLaunch and All Programs :D Win7SysTrey.jpg Win7AllProgs.jpg



Similar Topics: windows 7     x


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users