The benefits of old OS-ses

[Kees1958]

Okay,

Linux distro get better with every release, but mainstream desktop is still Microsoft. On our Windows home PC I prefer old OS-ses. I used Win95 for 10 years and I will also be using XP Pro for at least 4 more years (also 10 in total).


Reasons:
1. You buy a PC with an OS, problably strong enough to run that OS at time of buying. An OS upgrade on MicroSoft 9 out of 10 means you putting more weight on and old horse to carry.

2. When you smartly buy, you can upgrade your system after 4-5 years with minumum cost (I upgraded from Athlon 3700+ to el cheapo E5200, mobo + CPU cost me less tha 10% of original PC costs, even OC-ed oldie to 3,13 Ghz, transferring all other parts to the new mobo), meaning after some years you get a smoother faster system.

3. The older the OS, the more reliable it gets, I am now running with Windows FW, DefenseWall, some Software Restriction Policy and Avast check on write only and Winpatrol. With Iron my Browser starts in just a (1) second.

4. I always buy in to a new OS when it is at least one to two years old, meaning average PC are so strong they can easily carry the weight of the new OS. Also the average PC at theat time was a super PC one to two years ago, only at half cost (compared to two years back).

5. Other obvious advantage is that most bugs and exploits are ironed out aftertwo years, meaning I can do with limited suecrity soft (also cheaper).

Bottem line: recently I compared historic expenses of PCs with a friend, because my wife complained when I said that next year I would buy a Solid State Drive to boost my Programs Partition. It turned out that with my (often) two staged upgrade approach I spend about 30 to 40 percent less on PC's, while my friend says, geh man that oldie is fast!

What are other Wilders members approach / thoughts on this?

[Windchild]

I have a novel approach. ;)

I read about the new OS, and then test it if I'm interested. And if it turns out that the new OS has better performance for my needs than the old, then I move to use the new OS. If the performance isn't better, then I stay with the old.

Simple as that.

[ThunderZ]

Pretty much total agreement.

Have pleased many a client by simply upgrading their OS. 98 or ME to 2k for instance. This was done on systems that MS said were below minimum requirements. A few system tweaks, a lite layer of security and away they went.

In other cases a simple hardware upgrade, memory, processor, newer hdd. Or any of the combination`s breathed new life into an antiquated machine. Much cheaper then buying new for those that were strapped for cash.
Keep in mind these are not gamers or power users. Many are still on dial-up. Just good old Mom & Pop that want their e mail, news site, just the basics.

Just go`s to prove that the latest and greatest is`t always. ;)

[StevieO]

It always amazes me how some people rush to buy the latest this or that, without doing any research. That's apart from whether they actually NEED it !

Several years ago, i posted advising people to keep hold of their previous OS discs, and PC's. As i said at the time, i believe that one day, and sooner rather than later, they will begin to realise the value of them. Not financial lol, but a LOT less bloat, and internally more spyware free. YES, newer Windows OS's do spy and retain more data than previous versions.

By this i mean for example, the older versions of Windows such as 98se, had far less intrusive, phone home, connect out, etc software designed into them. Plus far fewer unneeded .exe's .dll's and services etc etc running on startup.

Along with IE6, it was also it was a lot easier and quicker to disable things to make them both much more secure. I fully accept that straight out of the box neither was too secure, but i always locked both down as much as i could before ever going online with them. Add in a few well chosen Apps, mostly free, and i can testify that those systems were as safe and secure as anything around today. In fact maybe safer etc !!!

Now look what's happened with XP and then Vista, no doubt it will with 7 too. Each time the next Ms OS is released it's littered with more and more auto starting .exe's .dll's services etc etc, many of which want internet access at some point. Many people know a good number of these can be disabled without it affecting anything. Most users don't need them, so why are they running by default ? They also take up more resources and make your PC less responsive etc.

With a locked down 98se, controlling what went out and where with what .exe .dll etc and App's was much simpler and easier to do and observe. With XP it's worse, and with Vista it's a flipping nightmare !

The only reason i built a new PC with XP, was so i could test Apps that wouldn't run on 98se. Still have my 98se discs and planning to either make my XP PC a dual boot or keep them seperate. The Vista PC isn't mine i hasten to add, just shared.

Moving on, then there's the later motherboards/processors with inbuilt spyware that came out, DRM etc etc. I'm not against copy protection at all, just don't wanna be spied on thanks.

[wilbertnl]

Kees, I agree with you.

I had the experience that my old cpu (AMD Sempron 2300+) died on me and I was not able to find a replacement. My computer was so outdated that parts were not available anymore. So, I had to build a new computer from Tigerdirect. Got a decent deal for $250, including SATA hdd of 500 GB and SATA DVD writer and now I'm fixed for years to come.
Interesting that I got a E5200 too. :)

Also video on DVD: I don't buy yesterday's release, but older releases, which are as much entertaining and cost less than half of the new-release price.

[Kerodo]

One thing I've noticed, having used every MS Win OS since Win95 thru Win 7 is that they tend to get slower with each new OS. For me Win2k was the fastest, XP is good now, Vista slower, and 7 pretty much like Vista really. So IMO, one advantage of the older ones is just better performance... As long as I have that, and the things I need still work, there really isn't any need to run something newer. Newer is not necessarily better.

[Aaron Here]

-{ Quote: "One thing I've noticed, having used every MS Win OS since Win95 thru Win 7 is that they tend to get slower with each new OS. For me Win2k was the fastest, XP is good now, Vista slower, and 7 pretty much like Vista really. So IMO, one advantage of the older ones is just better performance... As long as I have that, and the things I need still work, there really isn't any need to run something newer. Newer is not necessarily better." }-
From where I'm sitting you're 100% right on all counts - but you have to admit that MS works very hard to make sure that each newer version of Windows is prettier than its predecessors. ;)

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "From where I'm sitting you're 100% right on all counts - but you have to admit that MS works very hard to make sure that each newer version of Windows is prettier than its predecessors. ;)" }-
Yep, no doubt about that, I would agree with you the new ones are nicer looking. But to be honest, I don't see much other benefit. I like the way 7 looks a lot, but I frankly don't see it being all that much better than Vista. I also liked Vista's look better than XP. I am on XP right now and if I don't buy 7, this is what I will stick with.... I'm still undecided. I think I need some convincing. ;)

[JohnnyDollar]

You can make the newer os's run as fast as the older ones. You have to have the hardware to do it though.

[noone_particular]

I run a multiboot system with 98, 98SE, 2K, and a couple Linux versions. My hardware is quite old, so 98FE runs the fastest and is the OS I use them most. All of them are stable. The biggest problem with running an old OS is the lack of support and the planned obsolescense policy vendors use to try to force you away from them. Some of the rhetoric they use borders on outright lies. Topping that list is the claims that 9X systems can't be secured. The next worst is hardware compatibility. On my 98FE unit, I have a USB card, an external hard drive, a USB faxmodem, and a card reader, all of which are supposed to need 98SE or newer to run. They all work fine.

IMO, the biggest advantage of running an older OS is having more control over the system. I don't have to worry about online validation, WGA, or any of that anti-piracy trash. I can access or delete any file on my system without special tools or a live CD. I don't have to give the OS any internet access. IMO, the older operating systems are easier to secure because you can control them. Implementing a default-deny policy on 98 makes it nearly bulletproof, especially when you rip out Internet Explorer.

Win2K is as far as I'll go with Windows. Any new operating systems I get will probably be Linux. That said, I see no reason to stop using the old versions of Windows. There's unofficial support projects that give them abilities they've never had. For 2K, there's KDW. For 98/ME, there's KernelEX. Even without these projects, I've had no problems with old systems on the internet. They work fine. There's more than enough security-ware available to make them equally secure to the new systems. I run 98 with SSM free, Kerio 2.1.5, and Proxomitron. When properly configured, they're more than sufficient to protect you from almost anything, and the combination is lighter than any AV.

My costs with this system:
The PCs were free, discarded by people who were updating their systems.
4 network cards, about $20 each. 3 of them are in the firewall.
1, 2.0 USB card, about $30
1, CDRW, $80, replaced the worn out original CD drive.
1, External hard drive, $80
2 small used internal hard drives for multiboot setup, $20 for both.
New Monitor $89
Misc cables, about $20

Software:
Purchased NIS 2002. Threw it out a few months later.
Acronis 7. No longer used.
No other software purchased, freeware and Open Source equipped.

Not including the internet service itself, I've spent maybe $500 total in 7 years. For that price, I have 5 operating systems equipped to do whatever I want, with Smoothwall out front. I wouldn't mind having some faster hardware but I can't honestly say that I need it. Even if I had it, I'd put the same packages on it that I'm running now.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "I run a multiboot system with 98, 98SE, 2K, and a couple Linux versions. My hardware is quite old, so 98FE runs the fastest and is the OS I use them most. All of them are stable. The biggest problem with running an old OS is the lack of support and the planned obsolescense policy vendors use to try to force you away from them. Some of the rhetoric they use borders on outright lies. Topping that list is the claims that 9X systems can't be secured. The next worst is hardware compatibility. On my 98FE unit, I have a USB card, an external hard drive, a USB faxmodem, and a card reader, all of which are supposed to need 98SE or newer to run. They all work fine.

IMO, the biggest advantage of running an older OS is having more control over the system. I don't have to worry about online validation, WGA, or any of that anti-piracy trash. I can access or delete any file on my system without special tools or a live CD. I don't have to give the OS any internet access. IMO, the older operating systems are easier to secure because you can control them. Implementing a default-deny policy on 98 makes it nearly bulletproof, especially when you rip out Internet Explorer.

Win2K is as far as I'll go with Windows. Any new operating systems I get will probably be Linux. That said, I see no reason to stop using the old versions of Windows. There's unofficial support projects that give them abilities they've never had. For 2K, there's KDW. For 98/ME, there's KernelEX. Even without these projects, I've had no problems with old systems on the internet. They work fine. There's more than enough security-ware available to make them equally secure to the new systems. I run 98 with SSM free, Kerio 2.1.5, and Proxomitron. When properly configured, they're more than sufficient to protect you from almost anything, and the combination is lighter than any AV.

My costs with this system:
The PCs were free, discarded by people who were updating their systems.
4 network cards, about $20 each. 3 of them are in the firewall.
1, 2.0 USB card, about $30
1, CDRW, $80, replaced the worn out original CD drive.
1, External hard drive, $80
2 small used internal hard drives for multiboot setup, $20 for both.
New Monitor $89
Misc cables, about $20

Software:
Purchased NIS 2002. Threw it out a few months later.
Acronis 7. No longer used.
No other software purchased, freeware and Open Source equipped.

Not including the internet service itself, I've spent maybe $500 total in 7 years. For that price, I have 5 operating systems equipped to do whatever I want, with Smoothwall out front. I wouldn't mind having some faster hardware but I can't honestly say that I need it. Even if I had it, I'd put the same packages on it that I'm running now." }-


You know I have a 98se cd and have thought about making a 98se machine just for the heck of it but, I need a mobo that will support the drivers. And would need an ethernet network card with 98 drivers because I have an ethernet router. Getting a sound card and gpu probably wouldnt be a problem. I guess the only thing I would use it for though would be to play old games. I went over to a friends house a while back and he had a Win ME machine with a lot of old games that I remembered playing. I got on it and started playing a few of them and just started laughing. It's kind of like an old TV show or movie that you loved when you was a kid and then you finally watch it years later and say "Man, this show was cheesy I can't believe I liked it". After seeing those old games and comparing them to the games I play now I realized that I may be wasting my time building a retro machine. :)

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "From where I'm sitting you're 100% right on all counts - but you have to admit that MS works very hard to make sure that each newer version of Windows is prettier than its predecessors. ;)" }-

That is why always put a new PC together myself, let it build for a few bucks at an internet shop. This is the second time on a row I could update the PC at half ligfe (4-5 years). Only by buying another chip + mobo, doubled the CPU power and old XP on the (at current standards) low end cpu, rocks ), upgrade from Athlon 3700+ (single core ran on 2.8 Mhz OC-ed) to E5200 (OC-ed at 3,13 Ghz with 2 cores).

I recall the Intel 486 to Pentium II upgrade on win95 as more dramatic performance improvement than the Athlon single to Intel dual core on XP

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "You can make the newer os's run as fast as the older ones. You have to have the hardware to do it though." }-
I do have brand new hardware and plenty of horsepower, however, I have to disagree and say that the older OSs like XP run the quickest and snappiest. Linux in general is also much snappier and faster than Vista for example. If I could put Win2k on my new hardware, I would. But there are no drivers for it. Win2k would scream. The best I've seen on this PC to date is Win 2003 Server, which I experimented with for a few days just to test. There has been nothing to beat that performance. Vista, and even 7, are downright sluggish in comparison, even though they are made to run on the new hardware. They are just slower.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "I do have brand new hardware and plenty of horsepower, however, I have to disagree and say that the older OSs like XP run the quickest and snappiest. Linux in general is also much snappier and faster than Vista for example. If I could put Win2k on my new hardware, I would. But there are no drivers for it. Win2k would scream. The best I've seen on this PC to date is Win 2003 Server, which I experimented with for a few days just to test. There has been nothing to beat that performance. Vista, and even 7, are downright sluggish in comparison, even though they are made to run on the new hardware. They are just slower." }-

With the setup I have with aero turned off this vista is very snappy opening up programs, programs and features, control panel, explorer etc. or opening up anything for that matter. I mean I have not run a test because I also have xp installed on it but, mine is running pretty fast I can't hardly imagine it running much faster. Whenever I open up Outlook or IE or Firefox or control panel or nearly anything they just open up and close instantly. If my vista is slower than my xp then it is negligible because I don't notice it.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "With the setup I have with aero turned off this vista is very snappy opening up programs, programs and features, control panel, explorer etc. or opening up anything for that matter. I mean I have not run a test because I also have xp installed on it but, mine is running pretty fast I can't hardly imagine it running much faster. Whenever I open up Outlook or IE or Firefox or control panel or nearly anything they just open up and close instantly. If my vista is slower than my xp then it is negligible because I don't notice it." }-
How about other things like file copy, installing apps and drivers, and other typical or routine activities. I find Vista is extremely slow with installs, both apps and drivers, it takes last place compared to ALL other OSs. Vista also has a lot of quirks and glitches that you don't see in 7 even, certainly not in XP. Just oddities like Explorer or the sidebar crashing, things not loading each and every time into the tray at boot. And this is on a brand new fresh install. I'd hate to see it after a year of use. Sure, app loading appears quite snappy, but not much else does... And if you have to turn Aero off to get things up to speed, then that kinda defeats half the purpose of Vista right off the bat, it's nice looks.

I am not knocking Vista per se, just stating some observations. But I think in general, the further back in time you go from Vista, the faster, less bloated, and better the OS was, all other things being equal.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "How about other things like file copy, installing apps and drivers, and other typical or routine activities. I find Vista is extremely slow with installs, both apps and drivers, it takes last place compared to ALL other OSs. Vista also has a lot of quirks and glitches that you don't see in 7 even, certainly not in XP. Just oddities like Explorer or the sidebar crashing, things not loading each and every time into the tray at boot. And this is on a brand new fresh install. I'd hate to see it after a year of use. Sure, app loading appears quite snappy, but not much else does... And if you have to turn Aero off to get things up to speed, then that kinda defeats half the purpose of Vista right off the bat, it's nice looks.

I am not knocking Vista per se, just stating some observations. But I think in general, the further back in time you go from Vista, the faster, less bloated, and better the OS was, all other things being equal." }-

Well I am certainly not defending vista or any os for that matter so let me state that first. I may have noticed it a little slower upon certain driver installs but, I don't install drivers very often. As far as applications go mine are all installed. I will try something new every now and then. Aero would slow any os down not just vista. I think the Vista basic UI looks just fine. I got Vista because it was the latest os not because of it's looks. But with all that said I like XP. I boot into it from time to time and play a few games that I can't play on x64 Vista. I really have not experienced a lot of the problems that people have complained about with Vista on my current pc. I guess I just have the right hardware/software setup. I started using Vista after sp1 was released, so I didn't experience a lot of issues that pre sp1 users did. My first vista pc was a gift, an HP. It was 32bit and I had quite a few issues with it. I don't know if it was the drivers or what, but I had problems with it booting into windows sometimes and Vista would just freeze on me sometimes. After doing a couple of complete pc restores from the factory image (amongst everything else that I could think of) nothing changed. I sold it and made my own and installed 64bit on it. Everything has been smooth ever since.

Edit: I have noticed sometimes when I delete or move files that vista will pause before performing the task.

[lodore]

I have definatly noticed that vista is slow with copying operations as well as installing programs. programs install much faster with windows 7. i havent tryed xp on this machine so i cant compare that. vista SP2 is faster than SP1 but still far slower than other os's. thing is i shouldnt have to pay £80 to get an OS that works at a decent speed.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: " thing is i shouldnt have to pay £80 to get an OS that works at a decent speed." }-
Yeah, this is what irks me just a little too. I am still undecided on whether I will fork out the cash for 7. It's more the principle than anything else...

[Kees1958]

I am also curious about Win7. When the pre-order 40-50 dollar upgrade also applies to XP I might be inclined to try it. On the other hand a Linux distro with Crosover for windows sets you back 60 us$ dollar or so. That might be a compelling alternative.

Hijacking my own thread :P , are there members who have good experience with cross over for windows on a linux distro?

Or maybe Reactos will come to maturity that would be speed monster seen its minimum requirements http://www.reactos.org/nl/news_page_51.html

Cheers

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "
Or maybe Reactos will come to maturity that would be speed monster seen its minimum requirements http://www.reactos.org/nl/news_page_51.html

Cheers" }-
I wouldn't wait on Reactos, they've been working on that for as long as I can remember, many years now... :)

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "I am also curious about Win7. When the pre-order 40-50 dollar upgrade also applies to XP I might be inclined to try it. On the other hand a Linux distro with Crosover for windows sets you back 60 us$ dollar or so. That might be a compelling alternative.

Hijacking my own thread :P , are there members who have good experience with cross over for windows on a linux distro?

Or maybe Reactos will come to maturity that would be speed monster seen its minimum requirements http://www.reactos.org/nl/news_page_51.html

Cheers" }-

You can upgrade from XP you have to do a clean install http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/offers/pre-order-faq.aspx

quote from microsoft: Microsoft designed Windows 7 Upgrade media for Windows Vista. A customer with Windows XP can purchase Windows 7 Upgrade media but must back up their files, clean install, and then reinstall their applications.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "You can upgrade from XP you have to do a clean install http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/offers/pre-order-faq.aspx

" }-
That sounds great, I wouldn't want anything BUT a clean install myself...

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "That sounds great, I wouldn't want anything BUT a clean install myself..." }-

I feel the same way.

[noone_particular]

-{ Quote: "You can make the newer os's run as fast as the older ones. You have to have the hardware to do it though." }-
You can also make a flatbed truck accelerate just as fast as a 2 seat sports car if you give it a big enough engine.
AFAIC, the OS should be a platform for the users applications and an interface between the user and the hardware, nothing more. The OS should do exactly what the user tells it to and nothing more. Beyond that, it should stay out of the way.
-{ Quote: "You know I have a 98se cd and have thought about making a 98se machine just for the heck of it but, I need a mobo that will support the drivers. And would need an ethernet network card with 98 drivers because I have an ethernet router. Getting a sound card and gpu probably wouldnt be a problem. I guess the only thing I would use it for though would be to play old games. I went over to a friends house a while back and he had a Win ME machine with a lot of old games that I remembered playing. I got on it and started playing a few of them and just started laughing. It's kind of like an old TV show or movie that you loved when you was a kid and then you finally watch it years later and say "Man, this show was cheesy I can't believe I liked it". After seeing those old games and comparing them to the games I play now I realized that I may be wasting my time building a retro machine." }-
You'd probably have to pick up a used PC to get a compatible motherboard. The network card is no problem. The one I bought at WalMart works just fine with 98. Hardware vendors are not completely honest regarding OS compatibility. This PC for instance came with 98FE and 2 USB 1.1 ports. I picked up a 2.0 USB card with 5 ports at WalMart. The packaging and the CD said 98SE or newer was required. It installed and works perfectly on 98FE. I had the same results with an external hard drive, a USB datafax modem, and a card reader, all of which were supposed to need a newer OS. Each item is from a different vendor, Stratitec, WD, US Robotics, etc. The card reader was bought for a friends XP pro unit but works more reliably on my 98 box! I can understand a vendor not trying to support an old OS, but telling users that the hardware won't work when it works just fine makes no sense, unless someone is coercing or paying them to say that. The same applies to software. I have several apps installed on 98FE that aren't supposed to run on it, but work just fine. Don't take a vendors word for it when it comes to 9X compatibility.

Regarding the old games, I know exactly what you mean. I was there when Pong first came out. I used to love the table version that had the unlabelled orange button by your knee that put english on the ball. Used to play Space Invaders a lot when the video arcade machines got their start. Except for nostalgia, building a PC for these would be a waste of time. Then again, gaming is basically wasting time anyway. I waste time at a friends playing Pirates of the Caribbean. It's a good thing I can't play that game on my hardware or I'd be wasting a lot more time.

On my own PCs, I do very little gaming. They're more for general usage. One OS is strictly for experimenting and testing purposes. For normal internet usage, an old OS works as well as a new one, often better. True, I'm not editing video or moving gigabyte files with 98. Video doesn't interest me so I don't have any files that size. For 600-700MB ISO or zip files, 98 handles them just as fast as 2K, maybe faster. Simple tasks like making a shortcut to an app are faster on 98. The internet speeds for 98, 2K, and Linux are about the same on my hardware. Apps take about the same amount of time to launch. On bootup and shutdown speeds, 98 is much faster than 2K, even after using XPLite (http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html) (also works on 2K) to strip it down.

I can't see spending money for more powerful hardware and a newer OS just to get the same performance that I have now. A fancy desktop and features like Aero mean nothing to me. They serve no useful purpose unless you like to stare at your desktop. IMO, operating systems are going the wrong way. They're too big, too intrusive, and too restrictive. An OS should interface between the user, the hardware, and the users software. Beyond that, it should be invisible and silent. MS hasn't made an OS that meets those conditions in a long time, and I won't buy one from them until they do. They're not going to, so I'll stay with the old operating systems that I have until I'm forced to switch to something newer, which will probably be Linux.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "I can't see spending money for more powerful hardware and a newer OS just to get the same performance that I have now. A fancy desktop and features like Aero mean nothing to me. They serve no useful purpose unless you like to stare at your desktop. IMO, operating systems are going the wrong way. They're too big, too intrusive, and too restrictive. An OS should interface between the user, the hardware, and the users software. Beyond that, it should be invisible and silent. MS hasn't made an OS that meets those conditions in a long time, and I won't buy one from them until they do. They're not going to, so I'll stay with the old operating systems that I have until I'm forced to switch to something newer, which will probably be Linux." }-
Win2k was the last one I felt was really and truly good. Sounds like Linux would indeed fit your needs. Many choices there..... all the way from nice looking and easy down to lean and mean and minimal.

[DasFox]

In response to what StevieO said I don't get why Microsoft hasn't come up with the idea of a 'Services' setting called, something like, Business & Home and when you pick one then services for a Home user would all be disabled and that there would also be options easy for a newbie to see and read with descriptions to turn off other things like printers, fax, time, etc...

I agree there is no reason Home users need to have all this crap running and pigging out the sytem to a crawl and killing the performance.

Does anyone know where we can contact MS to send them some feedback on this and maybe we'll see them do something like this in Win7.

THANKS

P.S. I made a post here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/09/10/the-windows-feedback-program.aspx

[noone_particular]

-{ Quote: "Win2k was the last one I felt was really and truly good. Sounds like Linux would indeed fit your needs. Many choices there..... all the way from nice looking and easy down to lean and mean and minimal." }-
2K has worked pretty well for me. Except for a shutdown issue that I've never been able to fix, it's been good.

I have Puppy Linux installed and working, but I rarely use it. "On paper" it should be a near perfect fit to my needs, but I haven't enjoyed using it. It feels like I have to unlearn everything I know and start over, especially with the command line. After spending years with DOS, Linux command line is like learning a different language. I haven't begun to learn the basics yet. Right now, I'm very uncomfortable with it, and there's only certain times I feel up to dealing with it. Most of the time, I just boot to 98, especially if I have work to do.

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "Yep, no doubt about that, I would agree with you the new ones are nicer looking. But to be honest, I don't see much other benefit. I like the way 7 looks a lot, but I frankly don't see it being all that much better than Vista. I also liked Vista's look better than XP. I am on XP right now and if I don't buy 7, this is what I will stick with.... I'm still undecided. I think I need some convincing. ;)" }-

That Win7 isn't much different than Vista I agree, it is lighter in terms of resources compared to Vista. As a matter of fact this is probably the most controversial issue between Vista and Win7, the latter being more as SP3 for Vista (by inference the upgrade price from Vista Ultimate to Win7 Ultimate is too expensive IMO).

Vista compared to XP is a totally different argument, they are different in everything whether one likes or not. Vista is a lot better looking than XP, it is more stable (I had 1 may be 2 BSODs in a year, with XP I've lost count) safer, this is the new key word for modern Windows OSs which will probably incorporate a full Windows security suite free with Win7 (Firewall, UAC, Windows Defender, MS Security Essentials, IE8 scanning for malware).

My Vista Ultimate starts in 45 seconds, and shuts down in 16 seconds. XP is perhaps a tad faster, but that's all it's got. I really can't see any benefits with old OSs except some kind of human attachment that we often feel for a bygone era, and a perfect match for old machines that cannot function properly with modern OSs.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "That Win7 isn't much different than Vista I agree, it is lighter in terms of resources compared to Vista. As a matter of fact this is probably the most controversial issue between Vista and Win7, the latter being more as SP3 for Vista (by inference the upgrade price from Vista Ultimate to Win7 Ultimate is too expensive IMO)." }-

That is what is keeping me from taking advantage of the upgrade offer they have going right now. I wish I had the link, I remember reading about someone from MS saying, that Vista with sp2 and Win 7 were a lot alike with Win 7 having a few of the latest innovations. Part of me wants to take advantage of the deal but part of me says nah, it probably isn't that much of an upgrade. Besides I'll probably be able to get a cheap student/teacher edition of Win7 Pro next spring anyways. Hopefully it will come with the 32 & 64 bit disks like they have with their current upgrades that they are offering.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "That Win7 isn't much different than Vista I agree, it is lighter in terms of resources compared to Vista. As a matter of fact this is probably the most controversial issue between Vista and Win7, the latter being more as SP3 for Vista (by inference the upgrade price from Vista Ultimate to Win7 Ultimate is too expensive IMO).

Vista compared to XP is a totally different argument, they are different in everything whether one likes or not. Vista is a lot better looking than XP, it is more stable (I had 1 may be 2 BSODs in a year, with XP I've lost count) safer, this is the new key word for modern Windows OSs which will probably incorporate a full Windows security suite free with Win7 (Firewall, UAC, Windows Defender, MS Security Essentials, IE8 scanning for malware).

My Vista Ultimate starts in 45 seconds, and shuts down in 16 seconds. XP is perhaps a tad faster, but that's all it's got. I really can't see any benefits with old OSs except some kind of human attachment that we often feel for a bygone era, and a perfect match for old machines that cannot function properly with modern OSs." }-
I have just installed my Vista again today, only this time I put on the x32 version, since both x32 and x64 are on the disk. Strangely enough, all of the little glitches and oddities I saw with x64 Vista are gone in x32. And it seems pretty snappy and responsive in general, although still, some things are slower than in XP no doubt. I think I may keep this. The thing that annoyed me most about Vista x64 were the little glitches I encountered, most of which were gone in Win 7. x32 Vista seems pretty good here.... :)

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "I have just installed my Vista again today, only this time I put on the x32 version, since both x32 and x64 are on the disk. Strangely enough, all of the little glitches and oddities I saw with x64 Vista are gone in x32. And it seems pretty snappy and responsive in general, although still, some things are slower than in XP no doubt. I think I may keep this. The thing that annoyed me most about Vista x64 were the little glitches I encountered, most of which were gone in Win 7. x32 Vista seems pretty good here.... :)" }-

I've also gone back to Vista32 (I have several images with 32 and 64) because I really like Shadow Defender (it only works on the 32 version), and was pleasantly surprised how everything is working perfectly and fast especially after SP2 (shut down was 35 seconds on 64, it is now 12 seconds on 32!).

MSE wouldn't update automatically on 64, it's working perfectly with 32. My machine can handle the 64 bit version (although it was originally meant for a 32 bit OS), but like you said there are still little glitches here and there which are fastidious to deal with.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "I've also gone back to Vista32 (I have several images with 32 and 64) because I really like Shadow Defender (it only works on the 32 version), and was pleasantly surprised how everything is working perfectly and fast especially after SP2 (shut down was 35 seconds on 64, it is now 12 seconds on 32!).

MSE wouldn't update automatically on 64, it's working perfectly with 32. My machine can handle the 64 bit version (although it was originally meant for a 32 bit OS), but like you said there are still little glitches here and there which are fastidious to deal with." }-
Yep, working great for me so far, I am surprised. And it does seem pretty snappy and quick, in some ways faster than XP. XP is lighter for sure, and probably quicker in file copy and some things, but Vista x32 really is pretty nice. I think I will be hesitant to move to 7 so long as I have something that works well already. The only loss with Vista x32 is a bit of ram, I have 4 gigs and x32 only sees 3.3 or so, but I don't care about that, I never ever use anywhere near 4 anyway. And you're right, more apps work on x32. x32 is actually faster as there is no emulation for 32 bit apps as in x64.

[Aaron Here]

As I said previously, Vista (and '7') are sure a lot prettier than XP, but for my use (internet browsing, email, office apps and photo editing) XP does everything I need and everything runs very responsively on my laptop (1.8GHz Pent M and 1GB RAM). As a matter of fact, the only time I ever notice RAM consumption way over 400MB is when I'm using Adobe PSE7).

I guess Vista/Win7 may make sense on a newer PC with multi-core CPU and 2+ GB RAM, but for those of us with the same PC they were using a few years ago, XP remains the OS of choice - at least for my money. :thumb:

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "

I guess Vista/Win7 may make sense on a newer PC with multi-core CPU and 2+ GB RAM, but for those of us with the same PC they were using a few years ago, XP remains the OS of choice - at least for my money. :thumb:" }-
Yep, I'd never put Vista on an older PC. 7 might work though....

[Aaron Here]

-{ Quote: "Yep, I'd never put Vista on an older PC. 7 might work though...." }-
Yeah, but even if Win7 would perform better than Vista on an older PC, it's not likely that PC's video card would meet the requirements to properly support Win7.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "Yeah, but even if Win7 would perform better than Vista on an older PC, it's not likely that PC's video card would meet the requirements to properly support Win7." }-
I'm sure 7 would support any of the older video cards. The problem is when the hardware is too new and the system doesn't recognize it yet, or there are no drivers for it yet. I'd not worry bout that..... If there is a Vista driver for you video card, then it'll work with 7. And 7 might just support it out of the box anyhow.

[lodore]

all video cards that work on vista will work on 7. if using windows vista drivers you wont get the wddm 1.1 benefits thou.

I can see everyone's point of the benefits of using an older os but i wouldnt like to use an older version of windows now. im so used to the "proper way" of doing things now. in xp i would have to change accounts to do any sort of admin task. in vista i just get a uac prompt and type in my password.

[Meriadoc]

Win 7 is 95% Vista.

[noone_particular]

-{ Quote: " in xp i would have to change accounts to do any sort of admin task. in vista i just get a uac prompt and type in my password." }-
MS did not think the process through when they devised that setup in XP. If their version of a limited or user mode were properly designed, a lot more people might have used it. That's one of the reasons I prefer to use SSM to create separate administrative and user modes instead of creating limited "accounts", easy, fast switching. A double click on the tray icon and enter the password. Just that quick, even on 98. Without the password, the system runs in restricted, default-deny mode. When it's entered, full administrative access to anything. When it's that easy to call up the administrator mode as needed, running in a restricted is much easier. Being able to "tune" that limited user mode to match the users needs also makes a big difference. There's been more than a few occasions when I forgot that I was in user mode, like unzipping a new application and finding it can't start. IMO, that's how a limited or user mode should be. During normal usage, the user shouldn't even be aware of it.