Is Windows 7 upgrade worth $50?

Acer is charging £12.89 to ship the free version to the UK, if you buy a new notebook, but it says N/A for the shipping price to the US so i assume it will be free.

So not exactly free for some.

 

So this mean that the "upgrade" disc we are buying actually is the full version containing all the versions of Win 7?

 

Is this really true, Win7 is faster than XP on the same machine? Can someone verify this?

 

Yep, all discs will contain the full install package. However, it's the license key that you use to activate in Windows that will determine the feature-set that gets enabled. I believe that all features are copied during the installation, and that when you want to upgrade from Windows 7 Home Premium to Ultimate, you just enter in the upgrade license key, reboot, and your set.

 

I can confirm this. Windows 7 (Release Candidate 1) is faster on my HP Mini than XP is. While it does use more resources than XP does (RAM for example), Windows 7 uses them incredibly efficiently to provide a much better experience.

 

Win7 has several build in features that increase productivity for me and make getting around much easier.

Below is a list of features I could think off of the top of my head that are useful:

+The jumplist for the explorer icon is extremely useful when you put shortcuts there.
+The ability to open a new window on a program by middle-clicking the icon on the taskbar.
+The search now takes up the entire start menu, easier for long items. Aero peek has turned out to be surprisingly useful. As well as the show desktop with a click feature.
+Also, Win7 on the same exact machine (on an even smaller hdd partition) is faster than Vista hands down and runs into less 'momentary slowdowns' (ie opening up an explorer window and waiting for contents to load).
+Win7 has been able to find drivers automatically and install them for all my hardware except an obscure audio driver, which it found but didn't install the software that makes it more useful. It even found the drivers for my IR reader and gave the correct and up to date download link from the company's website. All in all, the driver and other update experince has been greatly streamlined and more reliable.
+The thumbnail preview that you can actually highlight over to bring up the window (forget the official name). Very useful, espcially when having many word, pdfs or other files open. Plus, the little close button is incredibly useful.
+Recently install program on bottom of MRU list.
+Little flyout menu to drag notification area icons to.
+Bigger taskbar buttons (I don't care if it is supposed to be for touchscreen or that you can do something kind of similar in Vista (regedit, though it looks nasty)) helps a ton for quick switching, less a change of missing.
+Devices and Printers is useful, as are some improvements to the PC monitoring tools.
+WiFi menu saves time, two clicks without needing to open a separate dialog.
+If a program is pinned to the taskbar, always opens in the same location spatially to other programs. Espcially useful since I had the taskbar set to autohide.
+Homegroup, great addition, haven't tested it out as much as I would like.
+Jumplist, especially for programs like Excel, Word, E-Prime, Opera, or basically any program where I open many files and need to go back and access one, don't need to wait for the program to open to select a recent file or naviagate to the file. Also, loading up inPrivate browsing from jumplist.
-Once devs start using it more, going to be amazing.
+Ditto to the explorer jumplist and its MRU folders.
[EDIT]
+How could I forget, Dragging a window to the edge and it fills half the screen, perfect (yeah, there is a Vista program to do this, but not as quickly and is buggy). Wish they would add the same feature for horizontal (top or bottom) or quarter screen (drag to an edge) stuff.
[/EDIT]
+I'll add more as I think of them.

---
So yeah, there are a lot of small things in Win7 that may not look like big improvements, but which I have assimilated so much into my actions of gettin around that there are many I don't notice (or forget they are in Vista until I switch back to test some stuff and find myself stiffled).

The 'on the taskbar looks like the dock, bad UI decision' crowd need to naviagte the taskbar properties menu and turn off 'Always combine, hide labels' to 'Never combine' or 'Combine when full'. Once that is done, the taskbar is much more useful.

Some people say that this could have been an SP, I would not agree. Furthermore, one of the main reasons they kept the kernel model 6.x was to make it so that a ton of compatability issues didn't appear (as some programs search for the kernal number before doing stuff), if I remember correctly. Win7 has a lot under the hood as well, but I wish Microsoft had decided to drop the price, but the quality of the OS so far is astounding.

Those who say that the launch may go bad, I wonder where they are getting the data from. I am unsure how the RTM will suddenly not support everything the RC has been supporting quite smoothly. Microsoft is being smart this time around, less talk and more delivery, though I want Expose-like feature built in rather than having to use a 3rd party, same with multiple desktops, they had a powertoys in xp (if i remember correctly).

All in all, at least for me, this is easily a worthy upgrade. The $50 (or depending, may go Pro or Ultimate) will easily be made up for in increased productivity, the RC has already saved me tons of time.

 

Wow, that is pretty amazing. Maybe I will buy a copy after all.

 

Do you think Microsoft will extend the date out of courtesy for those who missed it?

 

I am sure there will be an extension of some sort ;-) MS did it with Vista.

cheers ...

 

I recently got a netbook (Toshiba NB205. Atom N280 Processor) and removed the 1GB in favor of a 2GB RAM. Will Windows 7 Home Premium be able to run on this netbook?

 

1GB for 32 bit, 2GB for 64 bit.
Got the info here. You should be ok.

 

IMO it's worth it simply because UAC is far less bothersome in W7.

This is good for those who shouldn't, or don't want to tun UAC off.

 

The question we are weighing against buying Windows 7 now is whether or not the price is justifiable for upgrading now and facing the normal bugs that accompany any new system, versus paying more later when Windows 7 has had more use in real world environments (real-world environments referring to the uptake of 7 by companies and day to day average users).

With Microsoft's recent track record of Vista, it kind of makes me hesitant of the real performance ability of 7. But then the moral hazard is this: if all of us are so hesitant about 7, then nobody is going to upgrade... So, any guinea pigs volunteering?

 

Most definitely it will run. I have an HP Mini 1035NR with the following specs:

• Intel Atom N270 (one step lower than your N280)
• 2 GB RAM
• 60 GB Hard Drive (Spinning @ 4200RPM, Non-SATA )
• Windows 7 Ultimate RC1

The only weak point in my setup is the hard-drive. If it spun at at least 5400 RPM it would be dynamite. But it still works quite well. Boot up time takes about a minute just because the hard-drive is so slow in itself.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5060104&postcount=56

I will be doing a clean install as I've already migrated everything I use to Windows 7 and assuming they don't suddenly change the codebase or something, I'll be ready to go day 1. Also, if the RC runs so smoothly and has handled everything thrown at it so far (have had to change between multiple countries and differing ways to accessing VPN, different software, the daily abuse of games, playing with the registry, limiting voltage then running cpu intense simulations, etc.) and I anticipate that the RTM will be even more stable (though I haven't had any stability issues software side, played with some hardware that caused some hardware issues).

The RC convinced me, though I loved Vista as well, and never got people's hatred of it, every time I go back I feel limited, always some little feature I forget I rely on in Win7 that Vista doesn't have..

 

This is a tough question really. IMHO Vista has been working great. All annoying features (UAC, sidebar widgets, security warnings) were shut off a long time ago. The recent SP2 release did seem to speed things up a tad and effect power management. My lappy has always seemed to run swiftly and crashes have been rare for me.

Frankly, the 50 dollar upgrade is a good price for me, but I really just don't feel like there is enough difference to bother with it. Why invest in an upgrade liscence now when I know that I'll be buying another machine in about 1-2 years? By that time, win7 will either be a mature standard, or on its way to being replaced again.

Ubuntu is still a great, a free alternative to any of the paid OS's, and now it looks like Google is planning to get in on the game. You guys will probably think that I am nutty for saying this, but unless there are some compelling features available, and a sweet new GUI to stare at, I could care less about spending 2-300 bucks for a new OS. Especially as they keep making it harder and harder to use the software on other or new machines. I myself like to build my own, so its always a rip to have to buy more licenses after a hardware upgrade.

So my answer is no to the upgrade. If you are on XP, you might as well stay there since Vista / Win 7 likely are going to want a dual-core 2gb ram set up at minimum to run. If you already have vista all up to date, can you really name one thing about win 7 that is worth even 50 bucks? The thought of doing a clean install and re-customizing my laptop, which will probably eat its own motherboard in t-minus 9 months just makes it seem like a waste at any price.

 

There have been enough positive reports on Windows 7 RC that it has convinced me to move up, and the upgrade price is definitely right. I just ordered 2 Home Premium Upgrades from Costco, one for a new build desktop I'm building that I already had a full copy of Vista Ultimate that I was going to use for it, and the other will be for my current desktop which runs XP Pro. For the pricing, the upgrades seem like a great way to go.

 

I just preordered a second one too. Either to sell to recoup the cost or maybe for a custom built PC. Not sure yet, but $50 is a great price IMHO.

 

I doubt that it'll only be one or two years. I'd say at least close to 3. Either way, that's a still a large span of time. The point of getting the upgrade would probably be for a newer pc that has better hardware than what XP requires, so that you can be more productive or whatever. I personally still use XP and am not very fond of Vista. Windows 7 definitely does not need dual core nor 2 gb of ram. It can run decently on 512 mb and on a single core cpu. But that's beside the point. I understand people who still enjoy using XP and its more mundane and to-the-point interface. However, I would not understand why people would not upgrade their hardware from time to time. We're also moving into the age of the 64-bit architecture being prevalent and more ubiquitous. In order to harness this modern hardware, Windows Vista/7 is almost necessary, as XP, even the 64-bit will not utilize dual-cores optimally and more than 2 gb of ram will do very little to speed up the system. But oh well, the pre-order period has ended, so my rambling serves little purpose, really.

 

I will be upgrading I can't wait either I have a dv5 they should of called windows 7- windows vista mkII or something because of what I can see from my research especially in youtube with beta version it's looks is very very simular not like the changes for Xp to vista lol

 

Well, it's supposed to be built on the core components of Vista that have worked well. There was no need to completely rebuild the architecture and create new systems of functionality. These have been optimized and several new features have also been added, with many tweaks to the infrastructure. You shouldn't expect a brand new gui just because it's a new operating system. I don't think people would appreciate having to acclimate themselves to a new look and operation every time they upgrade. I suppose that's one of the benefits of the Mac OS, not that there are many.

 

How much do you guys think the full retail version will cost?

 

See this post. It has the upgrade pricing and full retail version pricing for all editions.

 

Thanks, I just looked at it.

 

Lol . . . I take on all those points. Now that the offer of a reasonable price is over, and the upgrade is now 120 bucks, its a no-brainer no way to upgrade! Its hard to justify the cost of buying an OS given that so many OEM's load it on for 'free' on increasingly cheap hardware. MS definitely benefits more perhaps from spreading its OS dominance than from hoping people will actually buy the software and stick it on their current system.

It is true that the dual-core 2Gb RAM that I described is not the requirement, but that's sort of like saying that XP runs great on 256Mb of RAM. 1Gb of RAM has always, to me anyway, been the sweet spot for XP, just as it seems apparent that 2Gb is the sweet spot 'minimum ram' for Vista / Win 7. Nothing cripples like the ole' hard drive dependent swap file.

The problem with keeping up with software releases is not really about the challenge of paying for an upgrade from time to time. The real problem is keeping up with the rapidity of platform changes coupled to the availability of old parts. That and the warranty problems / limitations of being able to upgrade OEM systems. The old desktop I built for example, an AMD socket 939 with AGP bus, is a current dead end. I can add ram sure, but the chips aren't availible anymore, and I need a new motherboard for PCI-E. The computer runs fine, but by the time I paid for a modern mobo, chip, RAM, and graphics solution (and hey, how about a zippy SATA HDD too?), I've spent 5-700 bucks and basically completely changed the whole system.

I guess if you have a relatively current rig, purchased in the last year or two, you could add a couple things and be running great, but then again my laptop only has so many upgrade paths, and most would give marginal performance gain.

Just as a last thing - if you don't really like Vista, what makes you think that Win 7 is going to be agreeable? The interface definitely took me a lot of getting used to, but after awhile you understand where all the important stuff is. Win 7 is not going to be all that different from Vista, so be warned! I'd like to point out also that Vista simply did not last long at all. The world stubbornly holds on to XP, and it is clear that the industry would prefer us all shelling out as often as possible for new software. I worry that 'updates' to MS OS products like Vista, and renaming, is going to become the rule rather than the exception. And given that the OS costs almost as much, or more than a Netbook, the world is going to get very strange indeed. Sort of like the ECU costing more than the car it runs.

 

Windows 7 is wayyyy better than Vista in so many ways, trust me you will be impressed just as I was when i tested the release candidate.

 

Well, yes, I did mention that the pre-order period is over, at least for North America. You just made it a moot point. Obviously if you're going to buy a new machine, given that your hardware is not by any means modern, as it cannot even handle Vista, you wouldn't be going out to update to a netbook. I wholly disagree on the point that you're suggesting that a netbook should be a replacement for an old laptop. You might as well be moving to the same or worse hardware. People are not just buying the upgrade so that they can upgrade their current systems. You also see the majority of people upgrading from Vista, than XP. They prefer to still have an install of XP, as it still remains reliable. Some may be planning on building future rigs, or they may want to run it in a virtual machine for whatever reason.

XP certainly can run decently on 256 mb of ram and Windows 7 can run decently on 512 of ram. The point is that you certainly couldn't say Vista could run on 512 of ram at all. You'd have to have Home Basic. The system requirement is definitiely different from what is recommended for better performance.

Of course, given that an operating system is considered a piece of software, in which you can run many other applications, I would think that for $50, the price of the pre-order is more than reasonable. If your system is that old, I really don't think it's the best idea to be upgrading it, anyway. It certainly wouldn't be counter-productive to build a new system. I'm sure that for that price, you can get a rather good setup. There's no arguing that the same OS and the applications could probably run a good amount smoother and with less restraints on better hardware. It is about time to upgrade to a new platform, hardware that will be more future-proof, supporting a 64-bit workspace and multi-core processors.

If you don't believe in the benefits of Windows 7, that is your opinion. I personally hold the conviction that Microsoft did a good job of tweaking and adding to the Vista structure. If it wasn't on any account usable or an improvement, people would not seem to hold a consensus of optimism for its release. Being someone who has tried Windows 7 since pre-beta builds, I can say that it is a remarkable leap from Vista. I do not like Vista, but as we have a computer at home that runs it, I still from time to time use it, and Windows 7 on my XP machine runs wonderfully better than Vista on 3 gb of ram and a dual-core processor.

 

What nonsense. Vista works just fine, and Win7 is just a point release of Vista. Some minor interface changes, and a few tweaks hereand there, that's it.

 

Yes and no. Win7 offers a lot of new features. Vista was about the core of Windows (kernel), Win7 is really about the experience, and productivity. You have to dig up to find these features or start looking for Microsoft videos.
It's packed with them.

And to add, Win7 was develop before Vista was release, like right now Windows 8 is in the works, and Winodws 9 is in the planning stages. So it can't be "Vista that works".

 

I used to be Vista defender but even just toying around with the Windows 7 RC on my laptop I get the overall feeling/impression that Vista is just bottom line broken and slow.

It's just ridiculous how long it takes to see if there are any updates available in Vista. Yet with Windows 7 it doesn't even take 10 seconds.

Just navigating folders is a breeze in 7. I never get any computer freezes or hiccups. Unlike with Vista.

I'm not saying Vista was horrible but ultimately I think it was a failure when compared to other OS's. It worked but just barely.

My only concern now is whether to keep my upgrade purchase from Amazon or wait to buy the full retail version.

I don't know what to do in that regard. I already have Vista activated on this computer yet I'm hearing a lot of uproar surrounding MS plans for upgrading via the upgrade discs. Something about 2 installs being required or w/e.

 

That's only if you don't have an operating system already on your hard drive. The upgrade requires an activated previous OS, apparently. Information is still pending on whether you can upgrade an upgrade, as was the case with Vista. I think that's what you're talking about. Of course, if the limit is that the OS must be activated already, then yes, trying to upgrade an upgrade with the previous method will be a hassle, or impossible without a full product key.

 

Is the 49.99 upgrade still available anywhere?
thanks

 

It seemed to be only at £49.99 for a week or so then jumped to £79.99 what was with that?

 

I can only speak for the US, it was only for a limited time/while supplies lasted. It is a great deal. Unless they release some kind of family pack (3-5 users) at a deal, this might have been one of the better deals MS has had. Even at the upgrade cost, it is not too bad...seeing you don't have to shell out $200+ for a new copy.

 

Well, i am now hoping for the family pack since we were on vacation during this promotion and missed out!
(yes, in the USA)

 

Here in the UK, PCWorld still have it advertised at £44.99p.

 

Do you use your OS everyday? Are you happy with Vista? Do you like having the latest technology and features on your OS? Do you go out and drop $ 50.00 on a dinner or some drinks that only stay with you until your next bowel movement?

If you answered yes to these questions, then I firmly believe W7 is worth %50.00 little bucks.

I am kicking myself for not taking advantage of Msoft's 50% sale

 

Great thanks, +REP

 

I used Windows 7 all weekend to surf the Web. Definitely worth the $50 for the major speed boost.

At $40 whichi is what I can get it for becuase Microcenter was running a 3 day special when it was first announced, it's a no brainer.

 

3 months to wait for Windows 7 to be released, no time at all

 

Guess we're in the same boat. I didn't have the money to buy it. Should I just skip Windows 7 and go to 8 (assuming they have this kind of promotional offer again)? I'm using Windows 7 RC atm and I'm so darn used to it. I can't afford to go back to Vista

 

7 will be around for a while. Just save up for an OEM version, or save up for a Technet subscription and have access to every operating system ever made by Windows.

 

Assuming that that you have proper revenue and balance budget, pre-ordering it, would mean that you would be charred once the order would be shipped to you (so October 22, 23rd).

You will have to wait 3 years for Windows 8, if no delays.
In your situation I recommend to get Windows 7 OEM disk from a computer store like Newegg. Based on the price of Vista OEM, it seams to be very close to Vista upgrade disk cost at normal price.
In this case, it would give you a full windows 7 disk, and you can keep your current Windows Vista on your system for another system as upgrade for Windows 8. Meaning that give you 2 system eligible to Windows 8 upgrade disk (assuming that Win8 upgrade will allow you to upgrade form Vista to Win8...) of course that is a risk, as it could be like Vista upgrade disk where it's XP only and not Win2000 like Win7 upgrade is now.
The downside of OEM is that the license will be lock to your motherboard (if it's like Vista OEM. Microsoft, for Vista OEM, accepted phone activation if the motherboard was replaced due that the old one broke, I don't know how it will be for Win7 OEM.

If you are at university of work at a company, ask (when Win7 is out) if you can get Windows 7 for cheap or free. Most university have Microsoft academic program, where you can get the latest Windows (among other Microsoft software) for free or really cheap. It's will be most likely be an OEM disk.

Well these are just ideas.
I mean if you can't afford Windows, then well you can't afford it. Don't be in dept because of it.

OOHHHhhh, rumor says that their will be a family pack offer for Windows 7.
If true, you might want to ask friend or family member to pitch in so that you all save, and all get Win7 for cheap.

 

That's not a rumor anymore. It was confirmed in the blog post that announced when RTM would be available.

 

Nearly all vendors in the UK sold out now at the cheap price of £49.

Only one I can see that still has the Premium at this price is Additions Direct;

http://www.additionsdirect.co.uk/rf...tem_id=15&Mis_item_loc_id=1&product=622893876

 

I just wanted to clarify that I did not say anything about netbooks replacing laptops! I said that new OSe's, like win 7, in many cases now are priced to be almost as expensive, as new netbooks and some laptops. I was pointing out the curiosity of the value of an OS exceeding the value of all that complicated computer hardware. Hardware prices are going down, software is not. The reason I brought that up was to suggest that the real way 99% of us gain access to a new OS is through the purchase of store hardware. Sans a special promotion, the cost of the OS is VERY hard to justify. Imagine buying a 500 dollar desktop (you barely like), and then having to pay 2-400 bucks for windows consumer ipod edition. Its nutty.

You also missed my point about RAM and upgrades. I am fully aware what kind of hardware is usable. What you seem to not be aware of is the reality that specs, like those on the back of the game box, almost always represent a system that will run it, but so poorly you'll want to shoot yourself for even trying. I have used the same OS on multiple machines and observed the results. Bottom line: modern OSe's want better hardware. You can justify 512 mb RAM if you want, but I would never pay good money for any software that I couldn't run better than adequately.

Finally, the system I referred to is, and always will, run Windows XP until it dies or gets replaced. In the meantime I am on a laptop running Vista 32 SP2. It came with the Laptop. Windows 7 for 50 bucks would have made sense if Vista hadn't gotten to be such an all-around decent OS. Then again, I can't invest in any new OS on a Dell laptop bearing the dreaded defective Nvidia GPU which should burn me up any month now! Lol. I'll get Windows 7 when it happens to be what is pre-installed anyway. Save myself a lot of time, money, and hassle.

 

Netbooks are giving XP another lease of life.

 

Not for long, they are anticipating that W7 SE version would run well on netbooks.

cheers ...

 

I know you didn't, but you almost seemed to imply it. Anyway, that is the difference between software and hardware. Hardware arrives much sooner than these software solutions, thus parts become more viable, but less desired by enthusiasts quickly. Prices at launch are always highest, unless there is some special over-the-top savings offered to get sales moving, which may or may not have been such a case for the software end in terms of Microsoft's pre-order offer. I agree that the regular pricing may not be as appetizing, as the cost is half of a netbook, but that really just depends on your budget and needs. Yes, the recommended requirements are a better example of what is needed to run software more reliably and pleasurably, but it is not always necessary. One would buy the OS if one knew one could run it well to fit one's needs. There has been much time to test out Windows 7, so there is no excuse for only assuming that it won't run well. I don't think Vista, even with sp2, which is installed on my system and also 32-bit, runs nearly as well as any Windows 7 build I've tested. Whether or not they share a common (G)UI or features, I cannot concede that Windows Vista has advanced to such a stage that would make it nearly equal to the operability of Windows 7. However, let us end this meaningless discussion, as we'll all get it when it suits us to do so.