Bogleheads.org

by **mpt follower** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:40 am

My wife has Window Vista, and for as long as she has the computer, she has wanted to switch out of it. My question is what to do? My inclination is to upgrade her computer to the most up to date OS version, Window 8, but I understand that this OS was designed mainly for tables, and she has a conventional computer. Can anyone tell me if upgrading to Window 8, priced very attractively, makes sense? And if not, what would you recommend? Thank you for your input.

Website · by **Mel Lindauer** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:43 am

mpt follower wrote:My wife has Window Vista, and for as long as she has the computer, she has wanted to switch out of it. My question is what to do? My inclination is to upgrade her computer to the most up to date OS version, Window 8, but I understand that this OS was designed mainly for tables, and she has a conventional computer. Can anyone tell me if upgrading to Window 8, priced very attractively, makes sense? And if not, what would you recommend? Thank you for your input.

Windows 7 is is the "new and improved version of Vista". It's what Vista was supposed to be. Lots of bad reviews of Win 8, especially if you don't have a touch screen, so I'd go with Win 7 if you have that option. I use Win 7 and have no intentions of going to 8.

by **Mudpuppy** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:53 am

I'd go for Windows 7 for a desktop computer. Microsoft can rename Metro (the Windows 8 UI) whatever they want, but it isn't really a good interface for productivity on a desktop.

by **soaring** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:37 am

Agree with others...Go with Win7. Win8 will probably last as long as Win ME ( Millennium Edition).

by **bUU** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:35 am

I'm happy enough with Windows 8 on the one new computer we bought. That's a lot different from saying, "Oh gosh - you've got to get Windows 8!!!" My lack of enthusiasm for Windows 8 should be interpreted as an indication that if you really do have a choice, going/sticking with Windows 7 is probably the most prudent move.

However, I would assuredly not strip Windows 8 off of a pre-loaded, "designed for Windows 8" computer, and put Windows 7 on there. (I recently had to think that through, and indeed, made the decision not to do that.) I've had a lot of experience with this "designed for" stuff over the years, and it is meant literally much more than a lot of folks are willing to admit. It's mostly a matter of how well tested the interfaces in the OS are to certain components on the motherboard, and so results in insidious issues that unless you're a major geek you'll never even realize that the problems you encounter track back to that decision to swap OSes. I think you've got a better chance putting a newer OS on a machine "designed for" an older OS than you putting an older OS on a machine "designed for" a newer OS.

by **Mitchell777** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:19 am

I'm a novice on these matters. How difficult is the upgrade from Vista to Windows 7 on a desktop. Is it a simple download with few issues to work out? Thanks

by **midareff** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:28 am

mpt follower wrote:My wife has Window Vista, and for as long as she has the computer, she has wanted to switch out of it. My question is what to do? My inclination is to upgrade her computer to the most up to date OS version, Window 8, but I understand that this OS was designed mainly for tables, and she has a conventional computer. Can anyone tell me if upgrading to Window 8, priced very attractively, makes sense? And if not, what would you recommend? Thank you for your input.

I reently upgraded one of mine from XP to Win 7. Smooth as silk.

by **Sidney** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:49 am

Win 7. Do a clean install, not an "upgrade in place".

by **Valuethinker** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:05 am

Sidney wrote:Win 7. Do a clean install, not an "upgrade in place".

Based on my past experience (to Windows 2000) trying to 'upgrade in place'...

I think this is very good advice.

Back up all your data (and check the make sure that the copy works, in fact copy it to 2 different external drives) and then clean install Windows7.

by **mhc** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:41 am

My concern for up grading a Vista machine is that the hardware is probably pretty old. I would consider buying a new machine pre-loaded with Windows 8. I just got an all in one for $380. It is very responsive for doing basic tasks. I have not tried any heavy lifting with it. I hate Windows 8, but for most basic tasks it is fine. It was easy to set up and get running.

by **Sidney** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:48 am

mhc wrote:My concern for up grading a Vista machine is that the hardware is probably pretty old. I would consider buying a new machine pre-loaded with Windows 8. I just got an all in one for $380. It is very responsive for doing basic tasks. I have not tried any heavy lifting with it. I hate Windows 8, but for most basic tasks it is fine. It was easy to set up and get running.

OEMs were selling hardware with Vista preloaded as late as 2009. There are plenty of boxes and laptops that have plenty of horsepower and life left in them. Vista was a miserable OS. I kept mine running until W7 SP1 was released as it is my normal policy not to load a new OS until SP1 comes out.

by **killjoy2012** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:13 pm

Go with Windows 7. Windows 8 is really designed for tablets & touch screen all-in-ones. I installed the Win8 RC on a spare laptop I had & couldn't stand it & basically came to the conclusion that Win8 makes no sense outside of the touch screen world.

by **jebmke** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:23 pm

killjoy2012 wrote:Go with Windows 7. Windows 8 is really designed for tablets & touch screen all-in-ones. I installed the Win8 RC on a spare laptop I had & couldn't stand it & basically came to the conclusion that Win8 makes no sense outside of the touch screen world.

Maybe they should have called it Vista 8 to save some of us some time. :wink:

Until recently I had to re-image several laptops from Vista to XP-Pro for a volunteer network that I maintain. Now we are migrating them all to W7. Vista was one of those runts that didn't last long thank goodness.

by **wilpat** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:37 pm

I have one laptop with Windows 7, another laptop with Windows 8 and a desktop with Windows 7. They all work OK, but I have modified the Windows 8 one to be more like 7 than 8. I use "Classic Shell" (an add-on) that makes the start menu like XP. I have removed everything from the Windows 8 start menu and it works much like Window 7.

Without touchscreen I would stick with Windows 7.

by **eschaef** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:38 pm

I just upgraded my mother's Vista laptop to Window 8 while at my parents' house for Christmas. Vista was literally strangling her machine, and as such it was barely functional. We chose the Windows 8 update because it was the most inexpensive way to "fix" her computer. Windows 7 is definitely the best option, but Windows 8 seems perfectly functional if one is willing to relearn a few things.

We did an "upgrade in place" although my mother's personal files were actually backed up and restored through Carbonite. I don't believe her personal files were preserved by Windows in the upgrade. (Possible from Windows 7, but not Vista if I remember the fine print correctly.) However, things like her printer and wifi settings were transferred with no issues. We had to install Office again, but thankfully we had the disk handy.

I took about 2 full days of tinkering (much of that waiting for Carbonite to restore personal files) to get everything set up the way I wanted it for her, but part of that difficulty was weaning my mother off of the desktop version of Outlook, and moving all of the emails stored in her old Outlook files up to her gmail account.

There are quirks with Windows 8 that definitely take getting used to, but nothing so far has been a deal breaker. It helped my mother that I was able to show her the common shortcuts to use and how to get from place to place so she didn't have to learn it by herself. The "Desktop" app works the same as the familiar Desktop, but with no start button. "Start" is now it's own screen, where all of your most commonly used apps and programs live for easy access. The "Windows" button is your best friend in 8.

My mom loves how her pictures scroll through a collage in the "Picture" app, she can watch TV on her computer through Optimum again (something happened after a crash in Vista that the TV app wouldn't function, despite every effort from Cablevision customer service), and that she'll be able to access all of her old emails online (when she goes to Florida every winter, she could never get Outlook to function properly).

So, I'd say the Windows 8 upgrade was a success...but mostly because it was cheaper than a new computer.

by **THY4373** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:41 pm

I know I am probably in the minority but honestly I run both Vista and Win 7 at home and there is a lot less difference between them today (I'd argue almost no difference in their operation and performance). Vista did have a lot of teething problems that MS has corrected over time (in my opinion Vista reputation today is much worse than its reality). If you have a Win7 license lying around that is one thing, go ahead and upgrade. But I'd have to think long and hard about whether the minor differences between Vista and Win7 were worth a $100 upgrade (to me anyway). You might want to consider reinstalling Vista as there is nothing like a new clean install to get the cobwebs out of a Windows install (Windows tends to slow down over time). If you are more adventurous the upgrade to Win8 is a lot cheaper and with some fixes it can mostly replicate the Win7 look. MS is so desperate for folks to use Win8 they are selling upgrades as low as $17 (about the max I'd personally pay for it, at least for a desktop/laptop non-touch PC).

by **bUU** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:35 pm

jebmke wrote:Maybe they should have called it Vista 8 to save some of us some time.

It is important to note that the "problem" with Windows 8 is not the problem that we had with Vista. Windows 8 is as clean and as efficient as Windows 7 - probably even more so. The problem with Windows 8 is strictly its client user-interface.

by **LadyGeek** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:51 pm

This thread is now in the Personal Consumer Issues forum (software).

by **Sunny Sarkar** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:54 pm

Just a suggestion: when you upgrade (I too vote for Windows 7 on a desktop), instead of installing Windows on the same old hard drive, add a solid state drive to the computer and install Windows on that instead. A 64gb SATA-III SSD will cost approx $50-60 from newegg.com - it will make your computer run so much faster that you wouldn't believe it. Use the existing hard drive for storage.

by **chaz** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:07 pm

I use Win 7 and like it.

by **paulsiu** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:04 pm

If you upgrade to Windows 7, I think you can upgrade in place and probably save your app and settings. If you go with windows 8, you will only be able to migrate your settings and have to reinstall all of your apps.

I upgraded my wife's machine from XP to Windows 8 recently, mostly because there's really no way of migrating all of her apps and we mind as well start fresh. I was also trying to get access to the file history feature. I setup a large 64Gb SD card to act as a file history drive so that when she screws up per presentation, she can restore a previous version of it.

Frankly, unless you have a need for Windows 8 feature, you are better off with windows 7. Windows 8 Metro interface is just a bit weird and feel bolted-on and doesn't work quite as well if you don't have a touch screen.

Paul

by **KyleAAA** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:14 pm

Either will work. Windows 8 isn't really much different from Windows 7 if you use it on a regular PC without a touch screen.

by **nisiprius** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:00 pm

paulsiu wrote:Windows 8 Metro...

It's not called Metro any more. Nobody knows what it's called, certainly not Microsoft.

They told people to quit calling it Metro.

For a while they called it "Modern UI" but then they told people to stop calling it that, too.

Then they called it simply Windows 8, which would be a good example of synecdoche (the container, the OS, for the thing contained, the UI).

Then they started calling it "Microsoft design language." Can you imagine a high school student saying "I need a new computer, Dad, all the other kids have computers with Microsoft design language, can I please have Microsoft design language?" Come on, that's dorkier than "Hello from Seattle."

Nothing speaks more to the chaos there must be at Microsoft that they don't have a name for their flagship UI.

I think they should call it "1984 Macintosh." The 1984 Mac screen had neither color nor shades of grey, so, no way to give a raised-edge appearance. All the icons looked flat. But at least on the 1984 Mac, there were two different icon shapes--rectangles for documents, diamonds for applications. That appears to be one more shape than The User Interface That Must Not Be Named has.

by **Epsilon Delta** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:47 pm

nisiprius wrote:
paulsiu wrote:Windows 8 Metro...
It's not called Metro any more. Nobody knows what it's called, certainly not Microsoft.

They told people to quit calling it Metro.

One wonderful thing about being an American (or Brit, Aussie, German, ... ) is that we don't have to do what Microsoft wants.

So "Metro" it is.

by **paulsiu** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:34 am

I think Microsoft rename Metro to Modern UI. Ironically, since Microsoft decided to remove the 3D transparent UI from Vista and Windows 7, and replaced it with a flat interface, it looks more like we jumped back to 1980's. The flat look probably works best on phones and tablet, but looks kind of cheesy on a PC screen.

Frankly, I am mostly a functional person, so I could care less about how it looks as long as it works.

Paul

by **chaz** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:31 pm

paulsiu wrote:I think Microsoft rename Metro to Modern UI. Ironically, since Microsoft decided to remove the 3D transparent UI from Vista and Windows 7, and replaced it with a flat interface, it looks more like we jumped back to 1980's. The flat look probably works best on phones and tablet, but looks kind of cheesy on a PC screen.

Frankly, I am mostly a functional person, so I could care less about how it looks as long as it works.

Paul

If it works, I am happy too.

by **Easy Rhino** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:41 pm

I upgraded my own computer from Vista to Windows 8.

Why? Because it was really cheap. Like $40.

The potential downside is there's the new interface to get used to. The tile interface is fairly worthless on a traditional keyboard and mouse combo, and I spend most of my time in the desktop. It's not really a bother. From a basic functionality standpoint, Win 8 is running great.

(I did a "clean" install because i also bought a SSD drive at the same time)

by **Tom_T** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:20 pm

My honest opinion is that the average user of "traditional" Windows is going to find W8 to be an alien landscape. My advice is to go to W7.

by **Jfet** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:40 pm

Win8 is meant for touch screen laptops and tablets. Software waiting for hardware to catch up.

In a year or so, all laptops will be touchscreen.

I would go for win7 if you have an non touchscreen device.

by **chaz** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:50 pm

My Asus all-in-one desktop has a touchscreen.

by **magellan** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:27 pm

THY4373 wrote:I know I am probably in the minority but honestly I run both Vista and Win 7 at home and there is a lot less difference between them today (I'd argue almost no difference in their operation and performance). Vista did have a lot of teething problems that MS has corrected over time (in my opinion Vista reputation today is much worse than its reality). If you have a Win7 license lying around that is one thing, go ahead and upgrade. But I'd have to think long and hard about whether the minor differences between Vista and Win7 were worth a $100 upgrade (to me anyway). You might want to consider reinstalling Vista as there is nothing like a new clean install to get the cobwebs out of a Windows install (Windows tends to slow down over time).

I agree completely with this. In our household, we've got both Vista and Win7 and IMO there's little difference between them.

Sluggishness from Vista is probably from crap-ware that's been installed over the years or from the system just getting long in the tooth. I recently upgraded my personal laptop to a new Win7 machine and I reinstalled vista on my old laptop to use it as a combination file server and dedicated Quicken/financial stuff computer. I replaced the system drive with this 120GB SSD which was on sale for $75. This gave the machine a great performance lift. IMO, if you're intent on spending $100 on an old laptop to improve performance an SSD probably offers more bang for the buck.

Personally, before spending any money or doing the work of a complete reinstall, I'd try a few maintenance tasks if you haven't already. Try uninstalling any junk apps on the system, run ccleaner or a similar disk cleanup app, then run defraggler. These steps aren't much work and may give nearly as good of a result as a fresh Win7 install. If they don't, a clean vista reinstall will perform about as well as a clean win7 install for $100 less.

Jim

by **SurfCityBill** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:57 pm

If you're not sure your "old" Vista computer can handle a Windows 7 upgrade go to Microsofts Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor. It's a simple program that analyzes your current system and drivers and advises whether an upgrade is feasible or what changes might be necessary, ie. more RAM, updated drivers, etc.

by AQ » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:13 pm

I'm in the market for a new laptop, and appears the majority thinks Win 7 is better.. But how could I get a brand-new win7? I shopped around for a couple of days and everywhere I go only win8 is for sale.

by **Sidney** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:24 pm

AQ wrote:I'm in the market for a new laptop, and appears the majority thinks Win 7 is better.. But how could I get a brand-new win7? I shopped around for a couple of days and everywhere I go only win8 is for sale.

Buy a bare machine and buy the OS separately.

by **bUU** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:25 pm

Keep looking, there are still some older laptops for sale, like this one:

Lenovo ThinkPad T430s Laptop with Advanced Graphics
Processor
Intel Core i5-3210M Processor (3M Cache, up to 3.10 GHz)
Operating System
Windows 7 Home Premium (64 bit)
Display Type
14.0" HD+ (1600 x 900) LED Backlit Anti-Glare Display, Mobile Broadband Ready
System Graphics
NVIDIA N13M-NS Optimus Graphics 1GB, Intel Core i5-3210M Processor (3M Cache, 2.50 GHz)
Total Memory
4 GB DDR3 - 1600MHz (1 DIMM)
Web price: $949.00
After eCoupon:
$854.10
You save: $94.90
Use eCoupon:
NEWYEAR

Available at Lenovo's own website.

by **Tom_T** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:05 pm

+1 on the Lenovo ThinkPad. I got one a month ago, with Windows 7. Very impressive laptop.

by **CaliJim** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:54 pm

I love my iphone. My next PC will be a Mac.

by **Novine** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:33 am

Whether you go to Windows 7 or 8, either is going to be better than Vista. I suffered on Vista on a laptop and migrating to Windows 7 was a huge relief. Vista was a resource hog and had plenty of interface problems. I have a new laptop with Windows 8. I was prepared to downgrade it to Windows 7 but I've been pretty happy with 8. I jump into desktop mode most of the time. I don't have much use for the tiles but Windows 8 starts up even faster than Windows 7 and it has some nice interface features that work better than Windows 7.

by **Mitchell777** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:54 am

Novine wrote:Whether you go to Windows 7 or 8, either is going to be better than Vista. I suffered on Vista on a laptop and migrating to Windows 7 was a huge relief. Vista was a resource hog and had plenty of interface problems. I have a new laptop with Windows 8. I was prepared to downgrade it to Windows 7 but I've been pretty happy with 8. I jump into desktop mode most of the time. I don't have much use for the tiles but Windows 8 starts up even faster than Windows 7 and it has some nice interface features that work better than Windows 7.

Maybe that is why I get these :high CPU" usage messages every other day and the computer just locks up for 10 or 15 minutes. Never happened on my former computers, but does on this computer using Vista

by **bUU** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:02 am

That's one of the things Windows 7 was about... addressing the really nastily inefficient aspects of the operating system software. That optimization made it into Windows 8, and Windows 8 is perhaps even better in that regard than Windows 7.

by **magellan** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:38 am

bicker wrote:That's one of the things Windows 7 was about... addressing the really nastily inefficient aspects of the operating system software. That optimization made it into Windows 8, and Windows 8 is perhaps even better in that regard than Windows 7.

I don't understand what this means. Runaway threads that consume 100% of the cpu often don't have to do with the operating system at all, but rather are a result of broken application software or bad drivers.

Sometimes high cpu utilization is the result of an OS bug, but even with Vista, Microsoft is pretty good about patching any bugs that are found. I don't know of any cases where a high cpu utilization problem was fixed in windows 7 or 8 and left unpatched in Vista.

AFAIK, the main optimizations in windows 7 and 8 had to do with startup time and a cleanup of extraneous security warnings from Vista's newly introduced security model. The startup time stuff is basically a gimmick IMO, because with a laptop, you hardly ever reboot. Also, when you do reboot in cases where there were any system changes at all, Windows 8 is apparently much much slower than its predecessors. Apparently, they do a bunch of optimizing on the first reboot after a change to speed up subsequent reboots. The problem is that for most laptop users, the only time we reboot is after a system change. The net result is much slower reboot times, on average, with Windows 8.

For security, Vista has a bunch of annoying pop up security warnings that make you confirm OS changes. In Windows 7 the process is handled more elegantly with less user interaction. OTOH, it's my understanding that the underlying security framework in both Vista and Windows 7 is nearly identical.

Jim

Edit: Apparently MS marketing folks decided to quell criticism of all the security warnings in Vista by suppressing many of them in Windows 7, even though the underlying security risks were still present. Some argue this makes Vista more secure than Windows 7 against certain exploits.

by **Novine** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:59 pm

I've run Vista and then Windows 7 on the same hardware and it's night and day in terms of performance. Where Vista was sluggish, Windows 7 was not. To me, that's an indication of the OS hogging resources. Bad drivers and buggy applications can contribute to this but performance-wise, in my experience, Vista is a dog compared to Windows 7 (and 8).

by **THY4373** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:58 pm

Novine wrote:I've run Vista and then Windows 7 on the same hardware and it's night and day in terms of performance. Where Vista was sluggish, Windows 7 was not. To me, that's an indication of the OS hogging resources. Bad drivers and buggy applications can contribute to this but performance-wise, in my experience, Vista is a dog compared to Windows 7 (and 8).

Out of curiosity is your comparison clean fresh install of both of OSes with the latest drivers? Or was one a three year old crusty Vista install that came from the manufacturer loaded with junk and old drivers as compared to a fresh clean install of Win7 with no junk and the latest drivers? It has been my experience that a fresh install of Windows before it gets loaded down with software is much, much faster all else being equal. If you look at various benchmarks out there (e.g., one picked at random: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/review ... w?page=0,3 ) you will see that the benchmarks are not all that clear cut on which is faster and even when Win7 is faster it isn't overwhelming. Honestly as others have said upgrading to an SSD is likely to have a more positive impact on performance than Win7 alone is.

by **bUU** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:11 pm

Windows 7 Tops Vista in Performance

by **magellan** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:19 pm

Novine wrote:I've run Vista and then Windows 7 on the same hardware and it's night and day in terms of performance. Where Vista was sluggish, Windows 7 was not. To me, that's an indication of the OS hogging resources. Bad drivers and buggy applications can contribute to this but performance-wise, in my experience, Vista is a dog compared to Windows 7 (and 8).

I apologize for being so argumentative, but IMO there's a lot of misinformation out there about this and it's causing people to spend money on an unneeded upgrade.

Windows Vista was a disaster when it was released because it was such a massive overhaul to the windows platform and MS did a lousy job executing on their QA and deployment plan for the upgrade. This is in stark contrast to Windows XP, which was also a major overhaul, but was masterfully managed from a QA and deployment standpoint (IMO).

Think of Vista like a new car model undergoing a radical design overhaul that included major body style changes as well as a completely redesigned power train. Meanwhile, the change from Vista to Windows 7 is more like a mid-cycle upgrade where a car company changes the grill and the tail lights and leaves everything else the same. At their cores, Vista and Windows 7 are basically the same OS.

The big difference is that unlike early adopters that buy into a new car model year, existing Vista users get all the fixes and upgrades to the shared part of the OS as they're released. I don't know the exact ratio, but I'd bet that the two OS's probably share about 90% of their code. All of the major frameworks between Vista and Windows 7 are shared and are updated and patched together. Windows 8 is obviously a departure from this, particularly with Metro, but I'd bet even Windows 8's core has a lot of Vista code in it.

Jim

by **bUU** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:27 pm

I'm not "betting". I cannot discuss my sources, but rest assured, there is far less Windows Vista in Windows 7 than there is Windows 7 in Windows 8, or even as compared to how much Windows XP there was in Windows Vista. For a single-step OS upgrade, Windows 7 was remarkably devoid of previous-version code.

by **THY4373** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:09 pm

bicker wrote:I'm not "betting". I cannot discuss my sources, but rest assured, there is far less Windows Vista in Windows 7 than there is Windows 7 in Windows 8, or even as compared to how much Windows XP there was in Windows Vista. For a single-step OS upgrade, Windows 7 was remarkably devoid of previous-version code.

Interesting but MS' versioning indicates otherwise. if you look at the official version numbers for each version of Windows as per Microsoft (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724832(v=vs.85).aspx) you will see that while Vista was a major upgrade going from version 5.x for XP/2000 to 6.0 for Vista. On the other hand Win 7 and Win 8 are "dot" releases to 6.1 and 6.2 respectively. As I understand software versioning that is highly indicative that the code base is largely the same between Vista/Win7/Win8 and certainly not the major re-code seen from XP to Vista. We can argue about how much Vista is in Win7 but it strains credibility to say Vista had more in common code-wise with XP than Win 7 has with Vista. In fact, MS had every reason not to make a major change so soon after Vista because most of Vista's problems (now resolved), were due in part to the major code changes that occurred with it.

by **THY4373** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:31 pm

magellan wrote:

Windows Vista was a disaster when it was released because it was such a massive overhaul to the windows platform and MS did a lousy job executing on their QA and deployment plan for the upgrade. This is in stark contrast to Windows XP, which was also a major overhaul, but was masterfully managed from a QA and deployment standpoint (IMO).

I agree with everything you say but one minor nit while XP was a major overhaul as compared to previous consumer versions of Windows (95/98/Me), it was really only a minor change from Windows 2000 which was already being used in the corporate environment. Thus while it was new to consumers the code had already been tested in Win2k and vendors had more time to adapt than with Vista. This is also reflected in the official version numbers where Win2k is 5.0 and XP 5.1).

by **Sidney** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:47 pm

THY4373 wrote:
magellan wrote:

Windows Vista was a disaster when it was released because it was such a massive overhaul to the windows platform and MS did a lousy job executing on their QA and deployment plan for the upgrade. This is in stark contrast to Windows XP, which was also a major overhaul, but was masterfully managed from a QA and deployment standpoint (IMO).

I agree with everything you say but one minor nit while XP was a major overhaul as compared to previous consumer versions of Windows (95/98/Me), it was really only a minor change from Windows 2000 which was already being used in the corporate environment. Thus while it was new to consumers the code had already been tested in Win2k and vendors had more time to adapt than with Vista. This is also reflected in the official version numbers where Win2k is 5.0 and XP 5.1).

didn't the W2K also have significant parts (kernal?) from NT which, if true, pushes it back even further in terms of rigorous use.

by **bUU** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:13 pm

THY4373 wrote:Interesting but...

I wish I could say more.

THY4373 wrote:but it strains credibility to say Vista had more in common code-wise with XP than Win 7 has with Vista

Call me a liar if you'd like. But in doing so, you're doing the discussion and readers of the thread a disservice.

Who is online