Want to change OS please give advice

terry5880

terry5880

Posts: 321   +3
Hi all i have win xp pro on here now i have just upgraded many bits in pc even case i i want to upgrade to top os if i can mate said i could go win 7 right my specs are ...
asus pk5pl-am-epu=mb dual core 2 core 2 duo e6750=cpu nvidia gforce8600gt=graphics card 2x 1gb memory. anything else needed please ask thanks for your time
 
Since Win7 is the only windows version currently available, the only choices you have are the version, and whether to go 64-bit or stay on 32-bits. Your motherboard and graphics card are ok for Win7, but 2Gb memory is a little low. You might at some future date go to 4Gb which many think is the sweet spot for Win7.
 
ok chose to go win 7 but as only just reformatted 1 month ago is there anyway at all of saving everything i got on here with going on disc
 
If you decided win 7 64, then no there really isn't any way to save your installed programs, they are going to have to be reinstalled. You could avoid doing this by installing 7 32bit, but I think that isn't the 'best' choice now.

Since you only installed XP 1 month ago, it shouldn't be too much of a loss to scrap it and reinstall the programs on 7.

If you are talking just files, then yes, of course you can save them somewhere else or burn to a disk and put them back once 7 is installed.
 
I know I might get knocked around a little here for saying this, but in my own personal opinion, keep Windows XP and dump the idea of Windows 7! From the looks of it, you've only been playing around with Windows XP for a very short period of time. I would recommend that you get to know the O.S. a little bit better, before rushing off and spending money on a new O.S. Plus the bright side is that you don't need to worry about even spending money to upgrade your hardware, your Windows XP will run great on what it is already running on.

I may indeed be a bit to obsessive when it comes to Windows XP, but I've used the rest of them, dating back to Windows 3.1 to Windows Vista Ultimate (64bit), for me XP runs fast, smooth, quick boot up times, quick power down times, can use the same "latest & greatest" hardware that both Vista and 7 use, plus XP isn't a RAM hog like Vista and 7, I got 4 Gig's of Patriot DDR2 in my old box and at most my system only uses up about 30% to 40% of all the RAM I have!

You may or may not have bought Windows 7, I don't know, yes the "eye candy" factor with both Vista and Win 7 is hard to resist. But if not I would recommend staying with Windows XP and keep it out on the road a little while longer as you give it a good test drive.

"My 2 cents"

Good luck...........
 
Zen said:
I know I might get knocked around a little here for saying this, but in my own personal opinion, keep Windows XP and dump the idea of Windows 7!
Click to expand...

Don't worry, only a few TechSpot members would even think of knocking somebody's opinion around.

One thing; terry5880, as long as XP still has a reasonable support for newer software, it's a perfectly fine OS. Piece of advice, though: many former XP-users who "upgraded" their OS to Windows 6.0 (Vista) became very frustrated. There are tonnes of "Vista Sucks!"-videos on YouTube and so on.

However those who skipped 6.0 and upgraded directly to 6.1 (Windows 7) were (mostly) satisfied! So in my opinion, terry5880 - skipping Vista for 7 is a good idea at the moment!
 
thank you all for your comments i already got win 7 , but things like taking up the ram slow booting etc would be annoying for me as i am impatient lol. what extra features does win 7 have or what benifits . please thanks guys/ladies
 
I'd correct your misapprehension about boot up times. Windows 7 boots up really fast - much quicker than XP although XP is a great OS. I'm running Windows Home Premium (32 bit) on a Core 2 duo desktop with just 2Gb ram. It runs much faster than my older desktop running XP Home.
 
Zen said:
I may indeed be a bit to obsessive when it comes to Windows XP, but I've used the rest of them, dating back to Windows 3.1 to Windows Vista Ultimate (64bit), for me XP runs fast, smooth, quick boot up times, quick power down times, can use the same "latest & greatest" hardware that both Vista and 7 use, plus XP isn't a RAM hog like Vista and 7, I got 4 Gig's of Patriot DDR2 in my old box and at most my system only uses up about 30% to 40% of all the RAM I have!
Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't need 4 gigs of RAM then :D

I was a big supporter of Windows 2000, its pretty much the same as XP without a built in firewall and cd burning - but its not like there aren't free solutions to that. And aside from the slow boot up, its even faster than XP.
 
I think a little "clearing the air" may be in order here!?! For I've noticed after my initial post here, that some are now making references to "boot up times". I just didn't want any misunderstanding here when I was talking about Windows XP's boot up times. In no way was I making any sort of side by side comparison to anything else out there. I was just simply making an honest statement about the Operating System, allowing the Operating System to stand on it's own, comparing itself to itself.

Yes I know if properly set up that Windows 7 on most occasions is faster with it's boot up times than XP. I know that with enough proper set up and most likely some major tweaking behind the scene, that Windows Vista could be faster with it's boot up than XP. And the list could go on and on, Windows 2000, Windows M.E., Windows 98 (1st) & (2nd) editions, Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows 2003, they all have bragging rights of their own, while simply standing on their own, and not being compared to any other out there in the world.

Just for me, only speaking personally, I love what Windows XP Professional (64bit) does for me, other than having to download some new .msstyles as to get rid of that cheesy bottom taskbar color, it's the greatest O.S. on the planet! But there again, I personally feel that everyone should love their O.S., after all for most, isn't it what we paid for?
 
Windows 7 is better suited to entertainment tasks than XP. Even the Windows Media Player is DVD capable in 7, (Home Premium, the lowest priced option), not so in XP or Vista. The Media Center has matured also. The "Aero" interface is a giant leap forward from the garish XP GUI. Wallpaper can be applied in the form of a slide show.

I don't know how any of this plays at a business level, but it is wonderful at the hobbyist level.

If you spring for Win 7 Pro, you would be offered a free copy of 32 bit XP Pro anyway, to be run in a virtual machine.

To make the switch, make certain all the Win 7 drivers are offered for your hardware. Not that Windows 7 doesn't do a fine job of finding drivers, they simply have to exist to be found.

Win 7 supports SATA natively (ACHI) so no detours to floppy disc drivers need to be taken to run your HDDs as SATA during the install.

I'm most happy with my Win 7 Pro 64 bit install, it just seems more agile than anything else I own. With that said, it's also installed in my most potent hardware. How much performance is equipment, and how much is the OS, I'm not sure.

With Win 7, 64 bit, (IMO) is absolutely the way to go, but 4GBs of RAM is also necessary to support it. (2GB IS minimum)!

The Windows 7 taskbar is an absolute miracle, but once you get used to its functionality, it's really tough to go back to working with XP.
 
My Acer Windows 7 32 bit desktop came with 2Gb ram and a Sony laptop I bought with 64 bit Windows 7 has 4Gb so that's probably a good indication of what's needed.

"f you spring for Win 7 Pro, you would be offered a free copy of 32 bit XP Pro anyway, to be run in a virtual machine."

That's very good to know. Running some XP programs in Windows 7 is impossible even with compatibility mode. A virtual XP OS is extremely useful.
 
Indeed, "XP Mode" and "Virtual PC" (obviously the virtual machine) are free from the M$ download page. Bear in mind, they can only be obtained and installed with WGA validation.
 
I also use XP Mode with Virtual PC, basically gives you XP Pro in a window for free ... comes in very handy.
 
For me I think you may have two choice...

First is to use both windows XP PRO and Windows 7 on dual boot...or use Windows 7 install only and if ever you need XP you may install it on VIrtual PC or VMware.
 
Zen said:
I think a little "clearing the air" may be in order here!?! For I've noticed after my initial post here, that some are now making references to "boot up times". I just didn't want any misunderstanding here when I was talking about Windows XP's boot up times. In no way was I making any sort of side by side comparison to anything else out there. I was just simply making an honest statement about the Operating System, allowing the Operating System to stand on it's own, comparing itself to itself.
Click to expand...

You came into this thread ready to be attacked for saying XP. Instead people gave valid reasons against XP now. I pointed out that if you are only using 30-40% of your RAM, then perhaps you didn't need to buy that much. Then just for s&g's I mentioned 2000 - it can do nearly anything XP can do you just need to use free 3rd party software... If you have 4GB of RAM in 32bit XP you aren't utilizing it all anyway so even further reason you didn't need that much.
 
Zen said:
I I just didn't want any misunderstanding here when I was talking about Windows XP's boot up times. In no way was I making any sort of side by side comparison to anything else out there. I was just simply making an honest statement about the Operating System, allowing the Operating System to stand on it's own, comparing itself to itself.

Yes I know if properly set up that Windows 7 on most occasions is faster with it's boot up times than XP. I know that with enough proper set up and most likely some major tweaking behind the scene, that Windows Vista could be faster with it's boot up than XP. And the list could go on and on, Windows 2000, Windows M.E., Windows 98 (1st) & (2nd) editions, Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows 2003, they all have bragging rights of their own, while simply standing on their own, and not being compared to any other out there in the world.
Click to expand...
If anybody wants to quibble about boot times between OSes, I really think that it's as much, (or more so), hardware and setup dependent.

Much of the contention about boot up time is rendered by type "A" histrionics anyway. Most of these individuals think their time, (and themselves) are so important that a 5 second wait will surely bring the apocalypse.

The root of the boot issue is actually the HDD, and if you do in fact "need" instant on, then save your pennies for an SSD.
 
SNGX1275 said:
If you have 4GB of RAM in 32bit XP you aren't utilizing it all anyway so even further reason you didn't need that much.
Click to expand...

Well I understand about the whole setting myself for an attack, when mentioning Windows XP here. I really do, it's old, out dated, some what obsolete, no real "eye candy", can't do as much as today's Operating Systems, I know, but I'm just a simple little man who I guess is stuck in time, like XP time, I enjoy watching friends & family who own Windows Vista and Windows 7 computers, I think the things are great. But as great as they are, just speaking for me, it's all a bit outside my O.S. comfort zone!

And I know about using 4 gigs of RAM on a (32bit) O.S. like XP, it won't all get read or recognized. That's why a long time ago I opted for the (64bit) version as so all my RAM could get seen and used.

Sorry for setting myself up here, just trying to speak form the heart, without having my ego jump in and make things mucky!

"Thanks for the warning"
 
Zen, rest assured you are neither alone in your preference nor depreciated by the more expert members of this forum. In my opinion, the world is split between the vast majority of users who have a PC 'for fun' and the tiny minority who use it as a 'tool of their work'.

You (and I) fall into the latter group, which is why we prefer a PC that does not look and behave like a toy.

Surely it absolutely speaks volumes that MS found it necessary to develope and supply the XP virtual system for Win 7? Who, after all, wants that, except most business users?

If you could actually cost the loss of productivity and wasted time learning a new operating system, by all the worlds industry, how much do you feel MS ought to be charged for that? How about 1billion dollars ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Daniel Sims
GPD Win 4 receives an upgrade to Zen 4 and RDNA 3 this August
Replies
2
Views
533
J95qRP7
J
tihon
Got a problem while trying to change my video card
Replies
9
Views
848
neeyik
neeyik
midian182
Returnal PC port recommends 32GB of RAM
Replies
19
Views
1K
Hodor
Hodor

Latest posts

Back