How many Vista users plan to ignore Windows 7?

I pretty much ignored Me and went straight from Windows 98 to 2000 Pro, and then was dragged kicking and screaming into XP since I had an ultraportable laptop with low specs that had too little RAM to run XP comfortably. (Certified for Vista, anyone?)

Right now I'm running Vista 32-bit Home Premium because I actually bought a computer instead of building one, and plan to upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit Beta 1 as soon as my 4GB of RAM gets here. I'm already running a pre-beta on another laptop and it has only crashed once, after coming out of sleep. That's pretty good on a laptop which could never sleep with Vista.

Windows Vista is pretty much Windows Me 2007.

Funny how that works... Windows 95, crashy as hell. Windows 98, stable as a rock. Windows 2000, no driver support and maybe not crashy, but nowhere near as good or long-lived as Windows XP. Same looks to be shaping up with Vista and 7.

 

Thus so far, Vista has served all my needs. I probably won't upgrade until I get a new laptop, which will be around the time Windows 7 comes around. The new features look nice, but not enough to warrant an upgrade; especially since it is suppose to be the equivalence of an upgraded Vista.

 

dude please stop talking out of your .....

You can get the taskbar to "look" like the taskbar, not function anywhere close to it.

Listen, I'm a huge Vista guy, I've taken a lot of heat from it from my mac friends and have explained to them how Vista has improved greatly since RTM

7 is just better on every single level...if you don't believe nor care to upgrade that's fine, but until you try it, you just won't know.

 

oh ill be running 7 when it comes out for sure..

 

XP had way more issues on launch than Vista and they took longer to get the ball rolling with XP. Vista has been great. I know, I lived through it since it was beta. Anyhow I have ran Vista since beta and never really had any issues. 7 will be straight pimping.

 

If (and I emphasize "if") Microsoft decides to make a temporary offer to _Vista users when Win7 finally goes RTM that will allow you to get Win7 at a discount, I would jump on that bandwagon even if _Vista, as currently configured, does all you could ever imagine wanting for one simple reason - support.

_Vista (other than the business editions) will not get security support after April of 2012 (XP, of course, will get security support until April of 2014), so, unless you have a copy of one of the business editions of _Vista (which get security support until April of 2017), you'd be silly not to take Microsoft up on any offer they might make to current _Vista users to switch to Win7 (at least perhaps to set up in a dual-boot situation), because if you don't come April 2012, you'll most likely find yourself having to pay full freight to get continued security support by switching to Win7 at that point.

 

Well, I'm an XP user, but I don't plan to ignore Win7. I'll try the beta (already have two empty partitions ready for it), and see how I like it. If it is a substantial improvement and solves the compatibility and stability issues that plagued Vista on my machine, and the price is reasonable, I'll probably upgrade decently quickly. On the other hand, if there's not actually much reason to upgrade or if it's quite expensive, it's not like XP won't keep serving me well. Probably depends on whether there's any features that totally hook me - features more than anything are what keeps me with Opera as a web browser. Otherwise I might actually be using Chrome.

I think the age of mass upgrades is over, though. Windows has been quite stable ever since XP (or 2000 if you count it as mainstream), and ever since 95 it's done pretty much whatever you've wanted to do (at the time - obviously it won't do Blu-Ray or World in Conflict for you) fairly easily.

Windows 98 does have the best version of Paint. I could actually get by with it day-to-day - it runs Opera 9.63, Word 2K, and my two favorite games, and plays DVD's with third-party software - but I have to admit I do like the stability and higher compatibility of XP.

I don't really get, what's the big deal with "dated"? Is this a part of computer-enthusiast culture I haven't adjusted to, that old has an inherent negative to it? I've always found "the best" to be the way to go, regardless of whether it's the newest. And not just in operating systems - several games I prefer the older version to the new, and I'm sure there'd be a few car models where I'd rather have the older one, too.

And really, no one's going to think "how behind the times" if they see you running XP, and most people have seen Vista so they won't think it's anything new. People might take note of you running Linux, but not XP or Vista.

Not to quote you specifically, but it was by your post that I really noticed the trend to cite that reason in this thread.

I can see these potentially being quite useful. For instance, I've made a vocab-quizzing program for Russian for myself. What do I categorize it under? It fits under both computer programs I've made and Russian. Or perhaps I could group both pictures and IM logs with someone together. Or, for those of us who do manual backups, do libraries by date. More uses will probably come to mind once I actually have them to play around with.

 

Could you make some clear for me. You mean Vista Business or Vista Enterprise aka Corporate.

 

http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_simple.asp

i hope i get it to work like it worked in vista. i prefer the way the taskbar works in vista. i have no win7 currently running, i plan to wait for the open beta.

i do care about upgrading. but vista serves me well (and yes it improved great since RTM). and the new taskbar is not better on every single level.

 

I'll only "upgrade" to 7 when it comes with my new PC I'm pretty sure Microsoft has learned from the Vista disaster. Performance + compatibility should be high priority in 7's development.

Oh wait, the thread is about "Vista users planning to ignore Win7". Oops. I use XP. Guess I'm out of here! xD;

 

It will probably be on my next gaming laptop.

 

Youre a dumbass if you ignore 7 as Vista user because its the same thing only tons better.. Already here in Beta 1 its a lot better.. No point in ignoring it.

 

Probably stick w/ Vista until I buy a new rig. Not worth the high prices they are likely to charge for upgrading.

 

Again, it comes down to needed and compelling reasons to upgrade.

"LOLZ Get with the tim3z dude!" or derivatives thereof is the worst argument I've ever read for upgrading.

XP is stable. Vista is stable. After the initial hiccups, I am sure 7 is going to be stable.

Make a list of pros and cons. Why are you upgrading? What is your current OS not providing you the newer version will?

I agree in that new isn't always better depending on the needs and expectations of the user. I remember an ex girlfriend who still used an original IBM PC-XT up to 2000 (yes, the year 2001), with Wordperfect 5.1 and Dos and loved it. Full height HD (20mb), 5.25 360kb floppy and all. She upgraded when she wanted to stay in contact with family and friends and needed to run AOL and AIM. Extreme situation, but I understood her reasons.

Upgrading just to upgrade with no clear list of logical reasons, outside of just running the newest of whatever, is a very herd like mentality software companies bank on to keep their coffers full.

On the other hand, sometimes you don't realize what you're missing until you try something different (hence, Windows 7 will end up on a machine or two somewhere). I've used Vista extensively enough to deem it very stable, fast and slick, but again, it is merely providing the same experience with a bit more bloat and overhead as my XP install. If it wasn't for work requirements, I was going to use an HDX18t and was more than happy to run Vista x64 as the primary OS, but Dell/XP was the mandate, and, well, there you go.

If and when Vista, or most likely 7, offers something needed, compelling (or both) to make the switch, I will. I always do.

The difference between being die hard/hard headed versus working with what works best for you is refusing to migrate to a different/newer OS even when it presents clearly compelling and/or needed reasons to do so.

 

As oppose to you?

 

Now this is the type of response that does absolutely nothing for the common good.

Based on what evidence?
Yours alone - please give evidence to support your opinion.

PS: On a side note, some people haven't had a single BSOD in Vista - I had several (on the same 3 issues thouhg - maybe 4)

 

I plan to buy Winblows 7 when the first Service Patch comes out, generally means they decided to fix all the screwups that were released with it, been following this since 98SE/XP/Vista64 and not had problems yet in windows.

perhaps im just one of few can't knock windows. (few BSOD's here and there doesn't qualify as the OS sucks) its all traced back to 1 thing generally - operator error. Unless you make Windows 2000 then thats all Microcrap to blame.

I would wait around 3ish months after 7 gets released to get it.

 

Since I always get my Windows for free thanks to my MSDN subscription, I'll probably get 7 at launch, I like what I'm seeing in the beta.

 

god I love this OS, the best I've ever used...

You know what, all the people who don't want to switch, I couldn't care less, it's your loss not mine...

The two weeks I had to go back to Vista after 7 were hell, not because of it being not stable, but just that 7 was that much better, soooo glad I'm back on 7, it's not even close how much faster this OS is

 

What are you talking about.. Windows 7 is based on Vistas kernel.. Theres no reason not to use it! Jeez

 

I'm going to Windows 7 as soon as I can. Hopefully getting a new desktop. I could get a desktop now, but I'll wait for W7.

 

Yes, you have a point there.
And if you use adequate language to express your feeling and add reasoning (like now) your post would gain so much value.

Insulting other people - even indirectly doesn't really do anything good.

 

In what world do you live in? Wake up! In the real world things are different.



Yes, I'll go tell the big boss in HSBC. Ya know, screw those hundreds of thousands we pay for XP. Lets chuck it all out because Vista is better. When Seven comes out I'll go up to him and say, dude, wth? let's chuck all the Vistas out because 7 is based on the Vista kernel. That is a good enough reason to change the whole infrastructure...again.

 

Well, if windows 7 really runs that much better on low spec computers then I don't see why IT depts won't start implementing windows 7. Far greater security and hopefully stability on windows 7 than XP or before (I know the standard OS in GE is Windows 98 or 2000)

 

Well, it's no different than most other things. Just like one guy buys a new car every couple of years because he just has to have the newest and coolest, while his buddy drives a 15 year old Mazda because it still gets him where he needs to go. Neither is wrong.

I worked on some lady's laptop the other day. Windows 98, dial up networking. To me it was like a trip in the Way Back machine. To her it was just her laptop. Did what she wanted, so why change it?

Personally, I like new and shiny. I'll probably go to 7 immediately.

 

So windows 7:

"its just better" (worst explanation ever btw)
Can run better on lower spec computers.
Is more stable (debatable)
Is going to cost over 100 dollars atleast.

Vista:

Will pretty much have the same capabilities as windows 7 (speaking applications)
Stable and secure (for the most part)
DX10 (which hasn't really been utilized yet)
Save 100 dollars in upgrading.
Resource Hog

Overall:
I'm sure Windows 7 uses less resources than vista, but with computers the way they are today I don't see this as a problem. If you have an older computer, then xp is for you. If you are going to get windows 7 because your computer is old and slow, then upgrading to windows 7 would be a waste anyways because you are going to have to buy a better computer sooner than not. Saying things like its "better" is not something I would dish out $100 for. When anything new comes out it usually an improvement on prior edition, but it usually includes NEW features. I just don't see windows 7 giving anything new, just "better".

You can keep your "better" I will keep my $100.

 

What that annoy me the most in Vista is Automatic File Sorting; 'Auto Arrange' feature that cannot be turned off.

I haven't tried Windows 7 beta yet, don't know whether it's removed. If not, I would probably keep using XP as long as my favourite softwares support the OS.

 

How'z 'bout this: _Vista security support - ends April 2012, unless you have the enterprise version; Win7 security support - most likely until 2014, and longer if any service packs are subsequently released (and you've installed said service packs), again, unless you have the enterprise version.

 

sorry if this has been asked already but does anyone know what the upgrade price will be from vista premium x64 to windows 7 x64?

i will probably upgrade a few months after 7 comes out depending on what the reviews are at the time. vista is pretty flawless for me right now.

 

Worst argument ever. It's about to become 2009. That's THREE years away from 2012 the last time I checked, by which time Windows 8 will be released. ***OH NOES I BETTER GETS A NEW CAR AS MY WARRENTY RUNS OUT IN 3 YEARS!!! OMG!!!***

FAIL.

As s0ap said. Those currently running Vista with ZERO problems (me) have no incentive to get Windows 7.

I migrated from XP because I wanted a more secure Windows OS. Now with Vista I have that. Stability is perfect, speed is fine, looks are fine, compatibility with all my programs are fine.

So, just what does Windows 7 offer me? A faster experience? Well Vista's speed is fine for me as it's quite quick actually. A more secure experience? No, not really. More stability? Well, Vista has been 100% stable for me, so what's Windows 7 going to do, make me a latte every morning?

Like s0ap, I will be keeping my money in my pocket. When Vista starts getting insecure as it can't keep up with the latest spyware and virus's, then i'll upgrade. Since OS's don't become obsolete every 2 years there is no reason to upgrade unless you want to for purely personal reasons.

 

You're as entitled as anyone to be a fool, so go ahead and make the most of it. Just don't expect too much sympathy when you're back here complaining about your imminent loss of security support, and how you're going to have to pay, oh, say, $200 to upgrade to Win7.

 

Imminent loss of security support? Haha! Have you been drinking? There is more support time left than Vista has been released. There is more support time left than Windows 7's lifespan! By the time Vista is out of security support you'll be warning Windows 7 users about their "imminent loss of security support"!

EPIC, EPIC FAIL.

 

HAHA! Like Captain Fail has said.... OS's do expire, but 2012??? Thats 3 1/2 years away. That is a LONG time. I understand why Microsoft is doing this (to shed vistas bad image just like ME), but there is no bennefit to jump over RIGHT AWAY. Yes, I will switch over to 7 at a later time, but jump over now.... there is no point especially with it expiring in 2012.

 

fwiw, it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft named a life cycle end date and then extended it. Additionally, while the life cycle for the OS is over at a given date, the life cycle for the browser--Windows most vulnerable component--extends beyond that time. You can, right now, go to Windows Update with a Windows 98 machine and get security updates for Windows ie6 that are as current as the last month.

As for me, I will likely upgrade just so I can find things when I need them on newer systems--it's darned embarassing when I am working on someone's computer and I have to search for some darn feature.

I am actually intrigued by Windows 7, which at first I thought was going to be more of a service pack than an actual OS, but there is enough there to make it at least worth considering.

 

Trying reading first, posting second; "imminent" referred to sometime in the future, not now.

EPIC, EPIC, EPIC FAIL.

 

More backpeddling than a clown on a unicycle.

You're wrong. I have pointed it out, others have pointed it out, and I think if you're honest, you know we're right. At the very least, in the face of such reasoned conclusions, in your position most people would have cause to rethink their position.

Not you though. You're determined to keep digging. Unfortunately that will only make the hole bigger

 

Wrong about the meaning of the word "imminent" as I used it in my prior post? I don't think so. Again, try reading first, posting second.

 

Still digging I see

 

Still haven't learned to read, I see.

Well, that's too bad; had you then this might have been a little more interesting than just an incipient flame-out, and, since I dislike getting into flame-fights with unarmed opponents, this'll be the last I have to say on this pointless little sub-topic.

 

Had to dig a further 6 feet before you stopped eh? Oh well. At least you've stopped digging, that's the main thing.

In fairness to you, it is often hard to recognise one's mistakes, but i'm sure you'll get there in the end

 

Since the topic is to avoid Win7 or not, any lessons learned from those, such as myself, who've already economized by simply skipping _Vista altogether?

 

I am not going to switch, because once SP2 for Vista comes out, it will be a more solid product than it already is. I am surely not going to spend a few hundred to give me some added features which I probably won't use anyway.

 

I definitely plan on migrating, perhaps after the first SP, however. Some people feel that since it's the same kernel as Vista, Windows 7 will be stable from the jump, but it's always been a "rule" of mine to give new technology a chance to mature before getting it.

 

If it is less than $100, I'd probably do it right away. If not, and I guess even if so, I don't really see the need to switch. I'm generally happy as long as what I have works. For the most part, the time it takes me to buy a new computer is similar to the time it takes for a new OS to come out (with the exception of XP, I guess) and that is good enough for me. I'll get it eventually, eh?

That said, I can't help but be curious here...how do you get in on the W7 beta?

 

There was a link up on Microsoft's website that got taken down. The word is that there will be a release for the public during the first week of January, so be on the lookout. We had a great Windows 7 thread that got closed because there were some people apparently talking about torrents and piracy. Why can't people just follow the rules?

 

Won't make the switch until I throw a new desktop rig together (more than likely after the first service pack is out).

Vista Ultimate has been serving me quite well these past 11 months, will keep things the way they are I think

 

I'm dual booting vista ult. x64 and windows 7 x86 beta, I am very impressed by it. Vista was never my favourite OS, and i had some doubts about windows 7. But after several hours of use on it, i can tell you it is most definately faster that vista, and even in beta, it feels more stable and responsive. I like the minor changes in the gui, and the new interface.

 

I'm just going to bide my time, see how it all pans out. Vista been really nice to me, so I'll probably stick with it for a while.

 

That link was just to invite interested parties to become beta testers--MS renews its pool of beta testers every so often. Signing up was no guarantee of invitation.

I was a beta tester for MS previously, but didn't send in enough bug releases so got dropped from the program. The refresh the pool by inviting new more enthusiastic folks in from time to time.

As for the early January release...not sure I would count on it. There was talk of a technical beta for technet and msdn members and MS Partner Action Pack subscribers for early January, but I don't know if it was going to be a public beta. As it is, I heard MS pulled the BETA from the Action Pack and intend not to post it for MSDN and Technet due to the leak of the earlier build.

I am somewhat surprised at how many notebook review members are legitimate beta testers...(yeah, right)

 

Paul Thurott mentioned in the December 5 Windows Weekly podcast that there was supposed to be a January public beta release. Of course, that doesn't mean it will actually happen, but I believe that it was at least planned at one point.

I'd be happy if they just released it to TechNet subscribers. The heck with the public.