Guest

Will you be upgrading to Windows 7?

be upgrading to Windows 7 when it's released or soon after?    107 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you be upgrading to Windows 7 when it's released or soon after?

    • Yes
      93
    • No
      14

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

79 posts in this topic

At work I've been testing & using Win7 since the inital Alpha release and we plan to migrate from XP to Win7. The way I see it Microsoft has 2 types of upgrades, plumbing & polish. Vista was a plumbing change and since it really wasn't ready for prime time, Win7 comes out and is a polish upgrade of Vista the same way XP was for Windows 2000.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

same here, Ubuntu user at home.

at work we will hopefully upgrade from XP to 7, as long as our computer centre doesnt force Vista upon us... for having matured for one year or whatever bull.... (hopefully we will get rid of all those users with local admin accounts on the way)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll never get rid of all the admins because they are too used to having the rights and would cry uncontrollably until senior management caves in just to shut them up.

Actually, VMware's virtual desktop looks very promising and you can control the permissions to the applications so that the user's only have user rights but can run the app with admin rights if needed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I'll try to reduce it to people who KNOW what they are doing.

We have at least one person in every department that has sort of a "1st level support" clause in their job description. They keep a lot of work away from "internal services".

I can see them having an admin account for the machines in THAT department.

But the normal user with admin rights? sorry, the situation as it is is total chaos. nobody asks IT about what they install on their machines, in contradiction to the written rules. that IT doesnt come down hard on them upon discovering that doesnt help either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding that not supporting problems caused by those rogue installs is helping. First thing I ask is 'who installed xyz' and if they say they did I uninstall it and Ta Da! All better! They normally freak when the uninstall starts, but when I point out that they aren't authorized to install it and that they'll have to discuss it w/their manager to get it back they tend to shut up.

Oh and we have permission to yank out all of the crap (Google Earth, toolbars, Skype, etc) if we even see it on their systems. I love the security officer!

Edited by Mordac85
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vista performs well and all required and must have fixes are not included, so I'll skip Win7

Hmm, a simple task like copying files is still dang slow with both Win7 and Vista compared to Win2K and WinXP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is the primary reason I have not migrated to Vista. I am constantly working with files on my system. Microsoft seriously bungled simple file operations with Vista. Search for strings within files... not with Vista. Fast file copy/moves... not with Vista. Network transfers... you're joking, right?

I won't be impressed by turd polish until Microsoft can fix basic operations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I am using Windows 2k. I'll probably upgrade to Windows 7 when it matures (Probably 5-7 years from now) Microsoft has this annoying tendency to turn out really bad software packages and then fix them in a service pack.

So I usually hold back and wait until they work out the bugs. Windows XP (before SP1) Was awful. So was every single initial release of a Windows operating system (Never saw the initial release of 2k, though I'm sure it's just as awful as the other initial MS OS's before they worked out the bugs).

Windows Vista is almost to the point it's usable. Though I'll probably wait another couple years to upgrade to it (I'll have to soon, since I need to get a new PC to use Office 2007)

Edited by clueless_furball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Network transfers... you're joking, right?

network is outstanding with Vista/Win7. Do you know what SMB2 is?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's why NT6.x uses the old SMB1.0 too. If you have 2 RAM modules (1 DDR2 800 and 1 DDR2 533) the fast module will run with the speed of the slower module. So this is the same. You are slowing down the possible speed to be compatible ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right now I am using Windows 2k. I'll probably upgrade to Windows 7 when it matures (Probably 5-7 years from now) Microsoft has this annoying tendency to turn out really bad software packages and then fix them in a service pack.

So I usually hold back and wait until they work out the bugs. Windows XP (before SP1) Was awful. So was every single initial release of a Windows operating system (Never saw the initial release of 2k, though I'm sure it's just as awful as the other initial MS OS's before they worked out the bugs).

Windows Vista is almost to the point it's usable. Though I'll probably wait another couple years to upgrade to it (I'll have to soon, since I need to get a new PC to use Office 2007)

5-7 years is maturing to you? You would be lucky if anyone knows what windows 7 is by then :P

XP SP1 did not take that long and the very mature SP2 came out way less than 5 years after XP's initial release. I would not advise waiting another few years to upgrade to windows vista. Since win 7 was built off vista (and backwards compatible with it) then in a few years win 7 will have a SP1 and be plenty ready for use with everyone. So skipping windows vista and going to windows 7 sounds a lot better than waiting longer for windows vista then even more time to then go to windows 7.

Edited by Zenskas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, from XPSP3 x86, although not still sure which version to use.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fast file copy/moves... not with Vista.
It takes no longer with Vista to copy files than it did with, say, Win2K (unless your network drivers are awful). It's just that it's no longer lying to you and telling you "hey, I'm done!!!" when it's still copying files from cache to disk (or the network). WinXP, for instance, would close the file copy dialog once everything was either in cache or at the intended destination - note the distinction. Vista only closes the copy dialog once everything is *actually* written to disk.
Network transfers... you're joking, right?
Works great here, even faster than XP (and yes, that's to a 2003 file server, so still SMB 1.0). If your network transfer speeds are that slow, don't blame Vista, because it's probably not Vista's fault. And yes, SMB2.0 really is that much faster than 1.0, but you'd of course need a 2008 server or another Vista/Win7 client at the other end of the file copy.

As to SMB2.0 vs 1.0, If the Vista machine finds the remote machine uses 1.0 rather than 2.0, it'll fall back to 1.0 - and considering the protocol is slow, complex, and designed long before the advent of fast networks, I'd say moving on isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Network transfers... you're joking, right?
Works great here, even faster than XP (and yes, that's to a 2003 file server, so still SMB 1.0). If your network transfer speeds are that slow, don't blame Vista, because it's probably not Vista's fault. And yes, SMB2.0 really is that much faster than 1.0, but you'd of course need a 2008 server or another Vista/Win7 client at the other end of the file copy.

Yes I just read an article on tom's hardware which found out it is the computers HDDs that are the bottleneck for network transfers. Gigabit ethernet is much faster transferring data than many HDD's can keep up with (135 megabytes per second or 1000 megabits per second). Transferring data from the system RAM to another PC's RAM got speeds of up to 111 megabytes per second, much faster than most HDDs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.