Windows 7 questions...

Arcto

Hello. Just wondering if anyone has bought the vista to W7 upgrade package?

I was thinking of getting the home premium 64bit as im sick of vista.
Im running a dual core processor with 4gb of ram so the 64 bit upgrade (im running 32bit atm.....dont ask) would be nice.

I was wondering are there any advantages or disadvantages to doing the over install as opposed to the format install? (besides the obvious format start from scratch hard drive approach AKA spring cleaning)

DECEiFER

As far as I am aware, upgrading from Vista x86 to 7 x64 is not possible. You'd have to do a clean and full installation.

Windows 7 is great, though. I've been using it since July and as a person who avoided Vista when possible, I can truly say that 7 is the way to go.

leninbenjamin

DECEiFER that makes no sense. Obviously you never took the time to explore vista at all or else you would have realised that Windows 7 is Vista with some GUI refinements. Seriously, it's pretty much the same kernel underneath adapted to give a smaller footprint and a new toolbar. Everything else is pretty much the same.

Btw OP, if you really hate Vista a downgrade to XP might be better than upgrading to 7 if you haven't tried it.

DECEiFER

leninbenjamin wrote: »

DECEiFER that makes no sense. Obviously you never took the time to explore vista at all or else you would have realised that Windows 7 is Vista with some GUI refinements. Seriously, it's pretty much the same kernel underneath adapted to give a smaller footprint and a new toolbar. Everything else is pretty much the same.

Btw OP, if you really hate Vista a downgrade to XP might be better than upgrading to 7 if you haven't tried it.

Ah now, that's not fair. I used Vista many times. They are nearly identical GUI wise, yes. But performance wise, in general, I have seen 7 top Vista. All you have to do also is Google and read what a lot of other people have to say. Of course some will agree with your assessment, lenin, but not everyone will. The real benefits of 7 over Vista come with slower machines, so I am told. I have never used 7 on a borderline PC or less, so I cannot comment on that myself. Thing with Vista is, it does work when it works. 7 just works more often. XP is still great and will run on slower machines more optimally than 7 will, but there's a time when you have to leave it behind, as it won't have applications and drivers developed for it forever. XP is two client OS's behind now and I reluctantly decided to ditch it in July altogether, a decision I am yet to regret.

The 7 GUI is one of its unique selling points. To me, it combines the ease of the traditional taskbar and the functionality of the OSX dock, all-in-one. It's fantastic, and I'd even think Apple users would agree to that.*


Note: The Vista GUI was never my issue at all. It is superior to XP's, I've always thought that. Before July I dual-booted Vista with XP, and before October 2008, I solely used XP. I tried Vista a few times before then, too, but I always went crawling back to XP.


*Not confirmed.

leninbenjamin

DECEiFER wrote: »

Ah now, that's not fair. I used Vista many times. They are nearly identical GUI wise, yes. But performance wise, in general, I have seen 7 top Vista. All you have to do also is Google and read what a lot of other people have to say.

Most of Win7’s performance improvements clearly come from improved multithreaded/multitasking performance.

from here.

Heavy users, like myself, running quad cores will see an improvement. For your average user though running a core 2 duo the performance improvements aren't that sizeable. Most home applications aren't even multi-threaded. And considering most users machines would be worth around €500 paying an additional hundred odd on a new OS does not make economic sense. Save up your pennies for an i7 machine that comes with 7 if you must.

DECEiFER

Ah, pay... I don't pay. :P

I run a Core 2 Duo, E8400. I've even noticed improvements. That's all I can say, because it's all I got!

leninbenjamin

DECEiFER wrote: »

Ah, pay... I don't pay. :P

I run a Core 2 Duo, E8400. I've even noticed improvements. That's all I can say, because it's all I got!

Ah yeah, well if you don't have to pay then there's no harm I guess. But the main point I was trying to make initially (before we went down comparing performance) is that if you don't like the Vista interface, Win7 isn't going to be much better.

As for the performance stuff: I'm running a laptop with Win7 32 here (Core2Duo T7250) and the only real difference I've noticed is the faster boot up times. Everything else feel's pretty much the same.

Personally, I think a lot of people are confusing the increased responsiveness as a result of the fresh install with direct performance gains from the OS. The numbers themselves don't show that much of a difference.

DECEiFER

The start-up time is quicker, but I did about three fresh Vista installs between October 2008 and July this year. I have certainly perceived a performance increase in 7. However, as they say, "my perception is my reality". I don't have any numbers from benchmarks recorded from Vista to compare with, sorry.

I think if you have the cash going spare, you would benefit from the upgrade or buying the full package. But if times are tight, then either look to keep Vista or acquire 7 using *different* channels.

Venom

Gotta agree with DECEiFER here as another core 2 duo owner with fresh installs of both vista 64 ULT and Win 7 64 ULT my system is alot faster on win7. I think its due to not having to install drivers as Win 7 did it all and along with the GUI and background tweaks its a much more stable and faster OS.

This is coming from someone who used and loved Vista 64 from day one Glad to hear my new i7 build will gain a boost as well tho

Leman_Russ

I hated Windows Vista

I love Windows 7.

Mojave Effect? Maybe, but 7 is much faster.

Arcto

leninbenjamin wrote: »

from here.

Heavy users, like myself, running quad cores will see an improvement. For your average user though running a core 2 duo the performance improvements aren't that sizeable. Most home applications aren't even multi-threaded. And considering most users machines would be worth around €500 paying an additional hundred odd on a new OS does not make economic sense. Save up your pennies for an i7 machine that comes with 7 if you must.

Thanks to all who responded. I could "acquire" XP but seeing as ive heard win7 trumps vista and i need to go 64bit anyway i might aswell spend the few quid. I was just gonna get the £80 package you can download and they send you a backup disk in the post afterward. Think ill go get an external HD so i can save some stuff.
Thanks again all!

cpu-dude

The reason I disliked Vista is because I've never really had a powerhorse of a computer.

Take my NC10 for example, it's a quick laptop with XP but with Vista AND 2GB of RAM, it really crawled including disabling of every unnecessary service and fancy Aero effects.

Thankfully, Windows 7 gave me what I really wanted - a modern new look of Vista and speed of XP.

PS: I've used Vista on high end machines and it does work very well - same reason Mac's do I guess.

Farcear

Arcto wrote: »

Thanks to all who responded. I could "acquire" XP but seeing as ive heard win7 trumps vista and i need to go 64bit anyway i might aswell spend the few quid. I was just gonna get the £80 package you can download and they send you a backup disk in the post afterward. Think ill go get an external HD so i can save some stuff.
Thanks again all!

You may be able to get it cheaper from someone who doesn't send you a backup disk because I've seen places charging (or including in the price) ~€10 just for sending you a backup of a disk you will already have burned yourself.

There are some threads in the Windows forum about the cheapest places to get 7.

Im running a dual core processor with 4gb of ram so the 64 bit upgrade (im running 32bit atm.....dont ask) would be nice.

Remember that the memory of your graphics card also counts towards the limit so you could free up to an additional gigabyte of RAM depending on what you have.


The advantage of just an 'upgrade' over a fresh install is the convenience and simplicity for the average user. However, you do sacrifice a lot for this convenience so I would definitely do a clean install if at all possible. That said, I'm also fairly certain that a clean install is needed when going from 32-bit to 64-bit.

Effluo

I ran Vista 64 and am now running W7 64 bit!
Both from fresh installations. Quad core, 4g's of ram...

It's certainly Cooler and handier to organise windows and that.

What gave Vista a bad name was the poor stability of it at release and the silly manufacturers putting it on crap machines without the required ram to run it.

Vista has turned into a fine os and op if you don't like Vista you will not like W7.
Reread the posts here, it's basically the same layout and your machine will not benefit much from it.

Also i'd like to point out that upgrading to a 64 bit os just to be able to use your 4g's of ram is a bit stupid as there are few users that would use anything near that! Yes even with the ram hungry vista.

Arcto

Farcear wrote: »

You may be able to get it cheaper from someone who doesn't send you a backup disk because I've seen places charging (or including in the price) ~€10 just for sending you a backup of a disk you will already have burned yourself.

There are some threads in the Windows forum about the cheapest places to get 7.




Remember that the memory of your graphics card also counts towards the limit so you could free up to an additional gigabyte of RAM depending on what you have.


The advantage of just an 'upgrade' over a fresh install is the convenience and simplicity for the average user. However, you do sacrifice a lot for this convenience so I would definitely do a clean install if at all possible. That said, I'm also fairly certain that a clean install is needed when going from 32-bit to 64-bit.

I ordered a 500GB external HD earlier so i think ill do a fresh and save all my music and some other stuff....like games i "backed up" the ISO's for

Ive got a 1GB GeForce 8800....so im really hopeing for a performance boost in ARMA2!
Thanks again to all.

EDIT:

Also i'd like to point out that upgrading to a 64 bit os just to be able to use your 4g's of ram is a bit stupid as there are few users that would use anything near that!

Its set up as a pure gameing rig, well net surfing too obviously. Im also not using my full dual core power running on 32 bit...so...yeah :P

DECEiFER

Windows 7 seems to use less RAM than Vista. I run a lot on start-up and 7 uses maybe a bit over 1GB with nothing much extra running at all (after all my start-up processes are all loaded). Vista would hog more, maybe 1.3-1.5GB, as I've noticed from previous experiences (running the same start-up processes).

You will need 4GB and more if you're into video editing, and your format is High Definition H.264 or similar. Believe me, you'll be better off with 8GB and even better off again with 16GB, if that is your pleasure. This is just a fact that I am now all too aware of during recent experiences.

I use both platforms, I dual-boot them. 32-bit for compatibility with my old studio sound card and for gaming, 64-bit for applications that can benefit from it, such as Adobe Photoshop/Premiere Pro/After Effects, and 3ds Max (just started out in Max in college within the last few weeks).

batman2000

Arcto wrote: »

Hello. Just wondering if anyone has bought the vista to W7 upgrade package?

I was thinking of getting the home premium 64bit as im sick of vista.
Im running a dual core processor with 4gb of ram so the 64 bit upgrade (im running 32bit atm.....dont ask) would be nice.

I was wondering are there any advantages or disadvantages to doing the over install as opposed to the format install? (besides the obvious format start from scratch hard drive approach AKA spring cleaning)

Not wanting to put huge spanner in the works, but if you look in the Tech->Operating Systems->Windows linky there are lots of links to a very similar query. Maybe this or this also this

Generally if you had
Vista 32bit you can upgrade to W7 32bit
Vista 64bit you can upgrade to W7 64bit
But you cannot upgrade XP or earlier to W7.

Most people will say a fresh install is always better but those who have upgraded from XP have had no issues from what I've heard and read.

DECEiFER

batman2000 wrote: »

Not wanting to put huge spanner in the works, but if you look in the Tech->Operating Systems->Windows linky there are lots of links to a very similar query. Maybe this or this

Generally if you had
Vista 32bit you can upgrade to W7 32bit
Vista 64bit you can upgrade to W7 64bit
But you cannot upgrade XP or earlier to W7.

Most people will say a fresh install is always better but those who have upgraded from XP have had no issues from what I've heard and read.

Yeah, you must upgrade from the same latform. I read this too on the Interwebs.

A fresh install just removes all bloat and leaves little room for a botched install and conflicts to occur (if any are known to exist). The average user may not mind it, but a person who has experience will notice, especially if they care about getting the best possible performance from their machine. Like, upgrading from Windows 95 to Windows 98 wasn't a good idea back in the day. I always found a fresh install did the trick much better. Since then I have avoided upgrading altogether.

devnull

You can upgrade Vista 32 Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit, but you must do a custom install upgrade rather than an in place upgrade - it's basically a fresh install.

It then places all your old files and stuff in windows.old.

Both my copies were retail if thats any help.

Leman_Russ

In any case, you are vetter off just doing a fresh instal anyway,

youcancallmeal

Whats everyone using for antivirus/antspyware on their Windows 7 install. I've heard that Microsoft Security Essentials/Windows defender is actually quite good and AVG is also fully supported to supported to provide the same cover.

Farcear

AVG.

Solitaire

+1. Are Defender and/or Windows Firewall any good this time? Used ZoneAlarm for years until it got really iffy after Vista SP1 (for all users, not just Vista ones! ), only using AVG and integrated W7 stuff at the moment...

Farcear

Solitaire wrote: »

+1. Are Defender and/or Windows Firewall any good this time? Used ZoneAlarm for years until it got really iffy after Vista SP1 (for all users, not just Vista ones! ), only using AVG and integrated W7 stuff at the moment...

I read an article a while ago saying that 8 out of 10 viruses tested successfully ran on Windows 7 -- though it was really more of a marketing blurb from one of the big anti-virus companies than a research article, so take with a pinch of salt.

Most reviews on Defender have been pretty positive, though not positive enough to make do without another dedicated anti-virus/anti-spyware program.

Solitaire

I'm more worried about anti-spyware (although AVG now does some) and firewall. Sticking with AVG for antivirus

DECEiFER

I use ESET NOD32 4 and Windows Firewall. I used to use Zone Alarm but as Solitaire said, it got very iffy in the last few years. I installed it last year and my God it just screwed up my start-up, and made getting into Windows a nightmare. I uninstalled it there and then and the problem went away instantly.

Windows Firewall is very basic but the reason I'm not using anything more secure is because security comes at a price. You can lock down everything but it's more hassle opening ports manually and allowing traffic through where it's needed. So yes, I am using Windows Firewall out of laziness. But to be honest, I haven't had a problem with Virii or Malware or any attacks, so until then I'll use it happily.

I also used to use AVG Free back before 2007 but since going over to NOD32 (v2, v3, and now v4) I've noticed how much better it is and I've been more secure since then.

Out of curiosity's sake, if I was to install a firewall to replace Windows, what would be the best options today? Zone Alarm was great back in the day, but not today. I used ESET Smart Security v3 over a year ago for a short time, but I'm not sure if their firewall is as solid as their anti-virus.

Leman_Russ

I use ESET Smart Security 4 (Firewall and Antivirus, these are the people who made the legendary NOD32), because I know a guy who knows a guy who bribed a guy who knows some guys. It is however, amazingly good. Simple for the pleb, and lots of sexy advanced features too

If you need free software, AVG is the best Antivirus, and COMODO is the best firewall IMO. For anti Spyware, use Spybot S&D

DECEiFER

Leman_Russ wrote: »

I use ESET Smart Security 4 (Firewall and Antivirus, these are the people who made the legendary NOD32), because I know a guy who knows a guy who bribed a guy who knows some guys. It is however, amazingly good. Simple for the pleb, and lots of sexy advanced features too

If you need free software, AVG is the best Antivirus, and COMODO is the best firewall IMO. For anti Spyware, use Spybot S&D

I've cleaned about 20 different PC's that have had serious malware infections. Spybot isn't the best for real-time scanning, but if you got a massive infestation or are running some malware program that has installed itself and claims to be a security program or otherwise, Spybot will nuke it!

I had a situation there in the summer where a friend fukked up her PC by clicking on stupid things. A security program installed, think it was Security 2009. It locked her out of everything. No Control Panel, no msconfig, and you couldn't end the process. Crafty little thing. I had to get Spybot, but that too wouldn't install without the malware security program stopping it. So, off to Safe Mode, and Spybot installed properly and cleaned it all up. For me, in these situations, it has a 100% success rate.

Is ESET Smart Security 4 decent? How's its firewall doing? Accessibility is very important to me, security comes a quick second (I know, I know, but that's just how I feel :P). I can't stand networks that just block ports aggressively, such as college and corporate ones, but I do understand their need of it. For a home network, how does SS stack up in providing security and excellent accessibility?

Leman_Russ

DECEiFER wrote: »

Is ESET Smart Security 4 decent? How's its firewall doing? Accessibility is very important to me, security comes a quick second (I know, I know, but that's just how I feel :P). I can't stand networks that just block ports aggressively, such as college and corporate ones, but I do understand their need of it. For a home network, how does SS stack up in providing security and excellent accessibility?

It is really simple. There is an automatic mode (which I have never used so I cannot comment) but the Interactive mode is really easy to use. Essentially, it autoblocks everything and comes up with a pop up asking to allow or deny, with an option for "Remember this" (Perma Allow/Block) or "Temporarily allow", which allows only that particular instance of the program to access the internet, and will ask again next time it is run. It autoruns at startup too to detect any sneaky programs that might be trying to start, and it has a simple one click Disable Firewall via the rclick menu on the tray icon (for troubleshooting).

Add to that NOD32 Antivirus built in, and you are golden

DECEiFER

Leman_Russ wrote: »

It is really simple. There is an automatic mode (which I have never used so I cannot comment) but the Interactive mode is really easy to use. Essentially, it autoblocks everything and comes up with a pop up asking to allow or deny, with an option for "Remember this" (Perma Allow/Block) or "Temporarily allow", which allows only that particular instance of the program to access the internet, and will ask again next time it is run. It autoruns at startup too to detect any sneaky programs that might be trying to start, and it has a simple one click Disable Firewall via the rclick menu on the tray icon (for troubleshooting).

Add to that NOD32 Antivirus built in, and you are golden

Ah yeah, I remember the Automatic and Interactive modes now. I will sure think about acquiring that most ricky-tick!

AlmightyCushion

I'm using avira for my anti-virus and windows firewall.

leninbenjamin

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'm using avira for my anti-virus and windows firewall.

ditto. I've personally found avira to be the best of all the free ones in terms of detection, although on the downside it has a large number of false positives.

AlmightyCushion

leninbenjamin wrote: »

ditto. I've personally found avira to be the best of all the free ones in terms of detection, although on the downside it has a large number of false positives.

Yeah when I install the full version on my desktop I'm gonna set it to low instead of medium. Might stop some of the false positives.