Windows XP has been a spectacular success for Microsoft. Many companies avoided moving to Vista as it was such a big change. Radically different hardware requirements and massive compatibility issues, coupled with a thorough overhaul of the user interface, intersected with the global economic meltdown. The end result was that …
LIDE scanner in VM
Just moved my parents from XP to Win7 x64 (new hardware) and also had the question of what to do about the LiDE 30 scanner which had no Vista/Win7 drivers of any description. Solved with Windows Virtual PC running XP (not in XP Mode but might have worked that way as well). Was quite impressed as I thought it might need drivers of the host OS too...
I have 32bit Windows 7 on a work laptop, the same on a personal laptop and Windows 7 64bit on a home quad-core desktop. All three machines had XP on before, and are all a couple of years old, or a bit more. I've yet to have a single system crash on any of them in about 8 months of total (adding up all three machines). Fortunately I've found drives for all my peripherals.
In essence, the stability and time to boot and responsiveness is a huge improvement and I don't think it is down to just clean builds, but we'll see as the patches build up. Don't have less than 2GB or 2 cores and there's a few changes for changes sake, but basically it is all good. On the basis that Vista was a beta, Windows 7 for, the first time, feels like I could live with it for ever.
Chicken or the egg
Reading about all the nice people who are having a great experience with Windows 7. I wonder if it is a chicken or the egg argument. I see people who buy computers with Window 7 and the computers have a large increase in processor power over their old computers. For most users, the people with Win 7 run the same programs as they did with Windows 98. So is it that Windows 7 is a step up for the user or another step in the Wintel cycle? Is the eventual goal of this never ending cycle of software-hardware upgrades every 2 to 4 years going to give people more things that they can do with their computer,,,,,, or will we have computers with the power of the computer on the Star Ship Enterprise running Windows 666 taking over a minute to bring up a Word document? Only the future knows for sure.
As a software developer, I've had ample opportunity to compare XP, Vista and 7 in both 32 and 64-bit flavours on the same hardware. Obviously this penalises the later OSes because the hardware is restricted to something that XP can deal with. On the other hand, if you are a corporate IT manager with an installed base of XP machines, this may be the hardware you are starting with. With this caveat in mind...
7 is fairly usable on XP-level hardware. That makes a wholesale migration of a corporate environment from XP to 7 possible. Whether it is actually worthwhile depends on how you rate the cost of supporting a mixed environment, but the choice is yours.
Vista offered no such choice. It is unacceptably slow and unstable on anything that XP will run on. (It has about twice the disc footprint after installation, about twice the RAM footprint after boot, and everything goes at about half the speed.) If you are unfortunate enough to have been lumbered with it, you should definitely consider paying for the OS upgrade because it is probably cheaper than any hardware upgrade that would deliver the same performance improvement.
The 64-bit versions of each platform feel essentially the same as the 32-bit ones. The difference in performance between the two is much less than the difference between XP, Vista or 7.
Now let's consider that caveat. It is sad that 7 can't match XP on XP's own territory, but I have no doubt that 64-bit 7 will knock the stuffing out of 32-bit XP on a machine with over 3GB of RAM and that's probably what it should have if you buy the box today, so for new purchases I think 64-bit Win7 is a no brainer unless you need unusual device drivers. (BTW, if you do need unusual device drivers, do not assume that the 32-bit driver you have right now for XP will run unchanged on 32-bit Win7.)
As a software developer, I expect most of my customers next year to be running XP32 or 7-64. I'll support the other 4 permutations, simply because once I've covered these two, the others come pretty much for free, but I'll feel sorry for anyone lumbered with them. Especially Vista. Comparing Vista and 7 on the same hardware is truly shocking. How could they have let it out of the door?
Windows 7 vs Virtualised MicroXP
Sorry.. I am too much in love with MicroXP (boots up to around 40MB and around 1GB install). I have about a dozen Virtualbox machines catering for my Windows development needs on my Linux metal box.
Windows 7? No thanks!
I doubt if a more glowing article about the reasons for dumping XP for Windows 7 could have been written if Steve Balmer had done it himself.
New OS & hardware or a night out?
After using XP for some years I wanted something more up-to-date & some new software too, the problem is I'd probably need to upgrade my 2gig cpu & 1gig memory system.
So with Windows 7 & new hardware around £350 at least! it wasnt looking good Then I found Linux Mint for free! (the software for its up-to-date & free as well) - and now my oldish system works & looks better the my brothers brand new Win 7 system.
A potential saving of £349.80 as I download it at work then wrote to DVD - just think how many pints that could buy ( 120 & half pints of Guinness!)
Win XP, 64 bit, now reliable why change?
We always wait at least until SP 1 before changing to a new OS but why bother if XP64 is doing it's thing reliably?
So for the time being we shall live happily in the past whilst others figure out the nigglies with a new OS. Chances are we will switch to Linux for most of our machines in line with our countries government who is steadfastly only installing Linux for government offices and school systems.
Windows 7 Migration – is it time to move to 64-bit Linux?
I fixed that for you.
Linux plus wine plus...
Virtualbox plus dosbox,
you've got all your Windows Apps and games back. Give it a try if you're sick of forking out money for OS upgrades.
Agree with article
when the time comes to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, I would think that most companies would consider the 64bit version simply for adding additional memory in the future. adding more memory has always been the easiest, cheapest way to gain performance from older PCs.
I think with the economy the way it is, it may take some time for companies to make the plunge.
There is no need to simply upgrade the OS without upgrading the machine. some PCs are several years old running XP, simply upgrading the OS without investing in the hardware is foolish and gains nothing. A new PC with Windows 7 64 will be required, and cost of replacement can get high. Many companies are still trying to ride out the storm, so purchasing equipment to do the same job just doesn't make sense right now.
Windows 7 seems to be a success, but I think it could have been better if the economy was better.
Also, I forgot to mention, I WOULD be willing to PAY for Security updates beyond the EOL
Migration was a failure here.
Windows 7 Migration – is it time to move to 64-bit?
NO. Too many apps don't work with EXTERNAL NON COMPUTER (I guess ya call it 3rd party) hardware, and have no equal. When I have no job, and need to toss out $10,000+ of rack effects and other hardware, and then BUY $2000 new hardware and the OS for $250 (rounded)... and then spend MONTHS tweaking the system and debugging..all while no production..
What would the team think about a corporate that was
about to upgrade from Windows 2000 and XP to Vista 32?
Would you be any less surprised if the IT outsourcerers name involved the initials E and S and D (not necessarily in that order)?
Re: What would the team....etc
I think I speak for all of us when I say the following:
We'll get back to you in a few days when we've stopped pissing ourselves with laughter.
All those improvements. Sounds good. Where do I update this pile of cra... Oh!
Is win 7 64-bit built by Jobs?
A productivity win? No Flash support in IE8 = no youtube.
There are a lot of people here with little or no understanding of legacy systems. These are either bespoke or modified(sometimes heavily) standard packages for business needs. Having spent a great deal of time, effort and money getting these things working why would a business want to throw that away for new anything. If it was 2000 so what? It costs a small fortune to buy in vast numbers of new machines and licences. From a business perspective it is about having something that does the job.
I only use Windows these days for satellite TV and the odd photo editing which picasa3 won't do. Oh and some games. Every thing else is done with Linux. There really is no contest on timing Linux wins every time 20-30 secs and browsing against 5mins plus on XP from pressing the on button. Windows 7 is no better I had a laptop running a game on holiday - no shortage of blue screens. I don't really care about an OS it is not the reason for having a computer the Applications are what matter. Guess what most of those are 32bit because the developer needs to produce for the lowest common denominator. 64bit hardware has been around for yonks but progress towards compatible software has gone at a snail's pace.
With all the people gushing about XP
XP sucks. It's just that it sucks in ways that users throughout the last ten years have gotten used to. For crying out loud, I had to do a complete OS reinstall this month because a game misbehaved, and hosed the entire box. Thing is, when XP goes Windows and needs a wee re-install, I'm fairly sure I know the voodoo to fix it. When 7 goes Windows, I haven't a clue. Chances are, neither does your IT department.
Most XP apps run in the compatability layer
At some point, Microsoft will have to abandon backward compatability to older versions of Windows. Apple had to do that when they changed architectures to go to OSX. Its too much to support all that backward compatability. They do provide the XP compatability layer and it runs your stuff seemlessly on the Vista Desktop. Its a Hyper-V virtual machine. It works pretty well. I've tried it with a application here at my office that won't run on Win 7.
Personally, I use VMWare Server and run an XP virtual machine there. I hate to say it, but we still have machines running Windows 2000. Say what you want, but it gets the job done.
I recently had an XP box die and faced this choice : spend money I cannot afford on new mobo/RAM/CPU/GPU/SATA and reconstitute the XP32 system, or spend 3x as much on a spiffy Win7-64 ditto with more cores and more RAM.
In the end poverty won. This isn't lack of foresight, it's just the math of survival in a stagnant economy that is unlikely to improve much. I would, by the time I'd upgraded apps, peripherals, and wasted weeks learning, have spent 10x as much, to basically stand still. I just don't have it, and the banks won't lend it, and even if they would, I don't know that I'll be able to repay it.
XP performance isn't the productivity bottleneck in my business, it's lack of customers with budget. If they won't spend, I can't spend. And that's the problem facing much of UK PLC as well as SoHo's like me, and we will delay IT upgrades for as long as possible as a result. Just like the car industry, many fewer people will be able to buy new every few years. And yes, Linux might make some gains in this environment as a way of extending the life of old clunkers - but the learning curve is where Linux costs are hidden.
Posted from my Nokia 6310i.
Multi Core has been around for a lot longer than we remember.
The first mass-produced multi-core device was in fact the Sega Saturn....with a quad core (or close approximation) it's taken almost 15 years to get to that point again.
Hmm yes some programs will never work with Win 7 in 64-bit mode. Classic example of this is some software we want to use it's an overlay program for something the program underneath will run on Win 7 x64 but the overlay doesn't and the overlay is the only one that supports the newer hardware we want to interface with - Classic Fail and once we had a win 7 32-bit pc built the other piece of software that links into this to give us the full system layout view doesn't work with the new software yet - so total failure of the software in essence.
I mean what is the point of putting nice shiny hardware out if you've not got the software to work with it in the environment your customer is going to have which is Win 7 x64bit we don't have the need for Professional can't really see the upgrade we'd get from Home Premium but hey bet this is happening a lot where there is specialist software that does a specific task that no-other software out there can replicate since it doesn't know how to interface with the hardware - almost makes me want to break out the programmers guide and write the software myself which I could probably do given a few years.
- iPad? More like iFAD: We reveal why Apple ran off to IBM
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
- Yorkshire cops fail to grasp principle behind BT Fon Wi-Fi network