I upgraded Vista > W7,works fine

since this was locked

http://forum.notebookreview.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1060

I wanted to say that,altho it took like 2 hours for it to complete,my computer started up fine when it was done.

I did have to install a new LAN driver,but my sound and video drivers seem to be just fine and I got no "unknown device" or driver issues in the device manager.

Had to pin some shortcuts to the taskbar and move my gadgets to the right of my second monitor like it was on Vista, but other than that, its basically the same as how I left it on Vista.

I just wanted to say,all the nay sayers about doing an upgrade (vs clean install),that it dosent go bad ALL the time anyway.

 

WHAT ARE YOU CRAZY!?!?!? Quick do a clean install before your computer blows up creating a small interdimensional rift and kills your entire town!!!!!!!

 

Meh, I prefer clean install for the fact that you have less registry entries, therefore making it faster.

 

sigh.......

 

Usually you don't run into problems after using it for a while...no one said it was impossible to upgrade.

 

:laugh:

This is great.

 

Got any proof of either of those assertions? Remember this not an XP>Vista or Win2K>XP transition, where the architecture changed so much that there was a lot of orphaned registry entries on some machines. And the days of big registry = slow machine are LONG gone. There is very little is any correlation between the size of the registry and the speed of the machine. The registry is NEVER read in it's entirety at any time so why would the size make a difference?

Gary

 

Oh boy, here we go again.......

 

Perhaps I put it the wrong way. Well think about it. My Vista OS takes more than a minute to boot. My Windows 7 clean install takes 32 seconds, or something close to it, depending on the day. Logically, if I did an upgrade, wouldn't that mean that Windows 7 would boot as slow as Vista did, since it still would have all the same programs that were causing it to boot slow?

Maybe it isn't to do with the registry? I don't know. All I know is that Windows 7 runs a lot faster than Vista ever did, and in gaming benchmarks, etc, they are pretty much on par with each other. Hell, Crysis gained something like 5 frames, and you can not prove me wrong on the fact that games ran the same in both.

 

my freind ran a test using his and his brothers laptops (both identical HP's) his brother did an upgrade cos he's lazzy as and didnt wanna reinstall everything and my freind did a clean install... after he installed all of the programs he had (his brother uses the same programs too) his system booted28-30 sec quicker than his brothers time after time...

also wether your upgrading an old os or not a clean install will always be faster than a clean install of the same OS that has been running for a year...

 

I opted for the upgrade as well and am happy to report everything seems a-okay. Win7 seems a lot snappier.

 

Now, wait until his brother loads all of his programs (how many hours will that be?). Then leave both computers on Tuesday night for a couple weeks so it can run its auto optimization overnight (windows defrags automatically every Wednesday morning at 1 m by default).

I bet you will find virtually no real difference.

 

You can't compare a OS you have been using for a while to a clean install OS...of course the newer OS is going to be faster(especially when 7 is already faster than Vista). The newer OS is more likely to have less programs than your Vista did, and much more other factors.

Also, no, logically 7 has many improvements to the original Vista architecture, so even if you upgraded, it would probably still be faster once your PC gets acclimated. Programs are not the only thing causes it to boot slow. There are drivers, start-up apps, start-up services, fonts, etc.

 

No, because some of those OS things from Vista would be replaced by the ones from Win7. And if you loaded all of your applications you had under Vista on to your fresh install of Win7, the Win7 boot would have any thing those apps needed at boot time, just like they did when Vista booted.

Have you reloaded all of your apps? Or are you comparingt the old Vista + applocations boot time with a Win7 + no applications boot time?

Gary

 

Your friend missed a step in the comparison. The clean install of Win7 had a defragmented set of Boot files. The upgraded Vista to Win7 had fragmented bootfiles. The upgraded machine needs to have the boot files defragmented before you measure the boot time. I suspect the 30 seconds difference will disappear. Why do I suspect that? When I did my upgrade, I measured the boot time. I then defragmented the boot files and measured again. My boot times dropped by 30 seconds!

To find out how to defrag the bootfiles, look for the link in my signature line below.

Gary

 

I too did an upgrade, which I'm somewhat ashamed of since I usually always stand by the clean-install method when I get a new OS. Vista seemed to maintain relatively good performance for the two years I used it, which I was rather thrilled with, so I decided to go with the upgrade and save myself the hassle of reinstalling programs, downloading steam games, shuffling files...blah blah blah.

Pretty satisfied with the results.

 

I have a semi-upgrade. Windows 7 upgrade does not let you activate if you enter the key only once you are in Windows after the clean install like Vista did. So I did 7 Pro clean, then upgraded it to 7 Pro (yeah it worked ) and it activated. It only takes like 14GB on drive, which is about the same as a clean install.

I suggest this route for people with upgrade keys, it goes really fast with a flash drive.