Home > Technobuddy > Archives > 2007 > June > 22 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USIs it finally time to upgrade to Vista?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Raise your hand when I call the name of your group.
Those of you with a really old computer please move to the back of the room. If you have a fast new machine, stay up here with me. The rest of you get in the middle.
I’m being barraged with e-mailed questions from readers who followed my advice and postponed installing Microsoft Vista. They want to know if it’s now time. The answer isn’t the same for everyone; that’s why I put you into different groups.
Let’s start with those of you in the back of the room. Don’t squirm, it’s OK.
If you have a computer running Windows 98, Windows ME or even XP and your computer has a processor with a speed measured in megahertz, not gigahertz, I’ll give it to you straight. You are never going to upgrade to Vista. You need to wait until it’s time to buy a new computer that already has Vista installed.
Vista Home Premium requires at least a 1-gigahertz processor, 1 gigabyte of RAM, a 40-gigabyte hard disk with 15 gigabytes free. You may notice I’m not even dealing with Vista Home Basic - and neither should you. It offers scant advantages over XP. So all my upgrade advice today will be based on moving to Vista Home Premium.
The people in the first group probably don’t have PCs that even meet the requirements for Basic. And when it comes to Home Premium, forget about it.
I usually tell readers to only replace a computer when it no longer can do what needs doing. But, in truth, if you are in this group - and if you can afford it - you probably ought to go shopping soon. Even if your computer works OK for you, it won’t let you sample all that’s available these days. You may be missing some things you’d enjoy.
Squeaking by
Next group, please. You probably felt pretty good as you just read the specifications for Vista Home Premium, since your computer meets those specifications.
Maybe you’re running Windows XP on a computer with the required 1 gigabyte of RAM and have a hard disk that’s big enough. And the processor is just a touch faster than the 1-gigahertz minimum. Hey, as far as Microsoft is concerned, your PC gets a passing grade.
But it flunks in my class. If you are in this group, please stick with Windows XP. Microsoft wants a lot of PCs to fit the specifications for Vista so it can sell more copies. Who can blame them? But I think it’s really stretched things to the breaking point with the minimum specifications.
We’ll call your group the squeakers: you barely squeak by the minimum specifications. Stay where you are. Vista will probably run on your machine, but by upgrading you’ll get slower performance and - I can guarantee it - you’ll end up adding RAM, a new hard disk and a new video card. Once you’;ve done all that and then start totaling up the cost, you’ll realize you’ve thrown good money after bad.
There’s no need for you to upgrade now, or even to buy a new computer if you’re happy with your XP performance.
Add a gigabyte
That leaves you fast-laners upfront. Your computer has a processor that’s faster than 2 gigahertz, your hard disk is 80 gigabytes or better and you have at least 1 gigabyte of RAM. It’s time for you to consider moving to Vista. Most of the early bugs are out. But don’t feel too smug; you may have some work to do and money to spend yet.
Let’s start with the RAM in your machine. Before Vista, 1 gigabyte was considered generous. Your machine probably is kicking along nicely with XP. But to get about the same performance with Vista you’ll need to double the RAM. Fortunately, that’s an easy and affordable do-it-yourself job. Plan on paying about $85 to add another gigabyte.
You may also discover your video card is slowing things down. I recommend a card with 256 megabytes of memory instead of Microsoft’s recommended 128 megabytes.
You’ll end up spending about $200 for RAM and video card, but I think the upgrade is worth it for people in this group. Vista really is better than XP. It’s more secure, a heck of a lot prettier and even has better free accessory programs. I love the new e-mail program that comes with Vista. The spam filtering is as good or better than any commercial product I’ve used. And backing up your data is a breeze.
Upgrade at will
I realize a few of you have a PC that blows away all the specifications I’ve mentioned. It’s fine for you to upgrade to Vista. You won’t need to upgrade the memory, your video card is amazing and the hard disk has enough room to store countless digital movies.
But I suspect you already know all that and have already made the jump to Vista. If you are still running XP you probably have a good reason.
We’re nearly done here.
Wait. There are a few people left. They are smirking and giggling. Be quiet and go back to your Macs.
Permalink | Comments (20) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns
Comments
By Halo
June 22, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
Vista won’t be even close to being mature until SP1 is released. There are still a lot of driver issues and other quirks that have yet to be worked out. Most gamers like myself are holding off on Vista until the second half of this year.
When XP came out, I thought it was bloatware compared to 2000. I didn’t upgrade to XP until 2004 after SP1 because I had 2000 running lean and mean. Well guess what? I have had XP running lean and mean for three years after countless hours of registry tweaks and other things to speed it up.
The nightmares I read about Vista do not bode well to the power user like me who wants an OS that does it’s job and does it well. Every new succession of MS’s mainstream operating system(s) is more and more user and hardware-eating unfriendly.
Let’s also not forget about MS dropping support of all operating systems prior to XP SP2, and they’ll drop XP SP2 support in 2008. In all sincerity, I do not look forward to having to learn new registry tweaks all over again since Vista is entirely new architecture even though it’s still based on the original NT kernel.
I’ll wait until Intel’s CPU price drop July 22 before building a new rig for Vista 64-bit (Core 2 Duo quad core Q6600 will be what the current dual core E6600 costs!). Microsoft eventually always pushes the older cattle off the cliff.
By Bill
June 22, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
Morning, Halo, you fit into this group:
If you are still running XP you probably have a good reason.
I think a lot of gamers are in the same boat. I was lucky, my online game isn’t really very demanding as far as hardware. So I’m happily playing GuildWars on my Vista machine.
By Parks Stamper
June 22, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
NOOOOOO. Run away. Far, far away from Vista if you use any specific software - ie - professional recording/editing. Bought a new laptop 3 weeks ago from Microcenter(who have been EXTREMELY unhelpful). Came loaded with Vista…my pro soundcard won’t work, editing software has issues, one printer won’t work. So I was going to reformat and load XP. Wrong. Microsoft has made that virtually impossible. Should have done my research and insisted the new laptop come with XP.
By Shawn
June 22, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this
I have the best of both worlds. I had a old IBM 12” Thinkpad. Had it rebuilt a time or 2 and it was slowing heading towards cardiac arrest. I bought a new Dell with Vista of course. Some things cannot handle Vista yet (my remote access for work, can’t watch ‘24’ and a few other nuiances).
SO - I loaded Windows Virtual PC on my shiny new laptop, installed XP in virtual windows mode and can run Vista AND XP simultaneously. I use XP for things that are not yet compatible with Vista. It’s like having 2 machines! Lovely!!
By Chris
June 22, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
Agree that you want to wait until SP1 before upgrading.
Microsoft offers a free utility people can run to see if their hardware is Vista-ready. Visit [http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx?wtsvl=20409a&mgid=20409b}
By Chris
June 22, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
Oops, I mis-typed the link format.
[http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx?wtsvl=20409a&mgid=20409b]
By Michael Murray
June 22, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this
When a brand new car model comes to market do you really rush to purchase the first model year of that car? No, you wait until the second or third year rolls out … so the car manufacturer has time to make changes to the problems with the first model year! The same is true for new computer platforms!
Purchased a new Dell Laptop March 2007 for my brother who I work with. XP Professional was no longer available so I went with the Vista program.
First, if buying ANYTHING, ANYTHING for a computer with Vista make sure the product is Vista compatable!
Early June… I purchased a HP printer off the shelf from Office Depot. Got it out of the box etc … went to place the HP operating disc into the new laptop with Vista and learned … COPIER NOT COMPTABLE WITH VISTA! Ended up buying a copier from Dell - Vista Compatable.
Also, there are issues of copying Contacts from XP’s Outlook to the Vista Outlook. Error messages & ‘Not Repsonding’ messages pop up. Called Dell and they had the fix for it … but very frustrating!
Personaly, I would not switch, yet, to Vista!
By Stanley Featherstonehaugh
June 22, 2007 7:38 PM | Link to this
There is never a time to have anything Microsoft; this voracious, hostile-to-indifferent to its trapped patrons, high-handed (hacking a number of updates, hotfixes, whatever, into my PC while I had the PC set, vis-a-vis Microsoft OSs, for me to be notified to decide whether I wanted the new download. Since the preponderance of them are useless or harmful, I was nearly ruined by the MS hack-team of idiots
By Jenn
June 23, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this
Some of those people snickering in the back of the room might just have Linux or PC-BSD. My daughter and I were discussing how, everything turns to Vista, we are both probably going back to a user-friendly Linux like Ubuntu or SUSE. With all the graphical interfaces like KDE out there, Linux is pretty user-friendly these days. The new PC-BSD looks interesting, too. Sort of BSD UNIX for beginners…..
By Joel
June 23, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
Keep in mind that by sticking with a Microsoft product you are continuing to stay in the cross-hairs of every virus, trojan and worm writer on Planet Earth.
There’s a school of thought that says that Macintosh OS X is more secure because there are fewer of them, that they are less of a target because they hold a 6% (albeit growing) market share, but more importantly because they hold a very low market share in the corporate space. Virus & trojan writers like to bring down corporations, not steal your Mom’s pecan pie recipe.
But ask most knowledgeable security experts and they will tell you that OS X is more secure because it was designed from the ground up to be that way. Unix lies at its heart and Unix is the oldest and most secure widely-used server technology in existence. It’s open-source and that means that every hacker out there has tried to break into Unix systems and when they do, Unix-heads worldwide (both geeks and corporate security specialists) analyze the attack and close that door. It’s been that way for 30 years!
Microsoft’s products are all proprietary, meaning the code is double-XX-secret. NO ONE outside of Microsoft has looked at the code therefore when a new exploit succeeds in finding an open door, you have to rely on Microsoft to fix it and they may or may not fix it quickly and/or completely — we just can’t ever know, which is why Windows is the most attacked system on earth, proprietary, buggy and insecure. Having said that, Vista is the most secure Windows yet, but you pay a big price for that (see previous article). I run the latest Mac OS on a Mac I bought in 1998! However the new Leopard, an even larger leap ahead of Vista than the current Tiger will probably not run on that machine, but on my 1999 PowerMac G4’s and better … .
Macs are secure when you buy them, ports closed, services turned off UNTIL YOU NEED THEM, you don’t have to do things to make them that way. I don’t even run an antivirus or have a firewall on my home Mac network and haven’t in 10 years (although these days I probably really should, you never know — but I’ve never had an attack — on my Macs), though turning on a firewall on a Mac happens at the click of the Firewall button.
In fact, there is no known trojan, worm or virus that has successfully spread in the wild on OS X Macs, EVER! Sure there are some demonstration exploits that writers say could, MAYBE spread if “these” conditions and “those” conditions were met, but so far, I’ve actually been completely safe in my wholly “unprotected” state. My PC’s? ARE YOU KIDDING? I run them behind walls, with antivirus and you know what, for the most part don’t even connect them to the internet if I don’t have to. Why ask for headaches?
So what does this mean for you? If you have one of Technobuddy’s “back or middle of the line” PCs, why ask for headaches and buy a new PC to upgrade to Vista? There’s no longer ANY reason for a PC user to stick with the bloated and buggy Microsoft products any more. A new Mac will run ANY software that can be run on a PC today. And it will run it more securely and more stably than Windows will and it comes with all the software most people need, certainly far better software that does the kinds of things that most people want on their home computers, photos, music, video, internet, chat & etc. And games? Here’s a secret, a modern Mac IS a PC that can run Windows if you care to, so all your PC games and programs? You can run them just as fast or probably even faster than you can run them on that PC you see sitting in your Best Buy today. But what’s really going to happen is, after a while, you won’t bother running Windows and at some point, you’ll just take it off your new Mac.
So I ask the question again, why keep hitting yourself over the head? Try something that every expert worth his/her salt agrees is the better, easier-to-use, more powerful OS, try a Mac. You’ll thank me … .
By atlatin piano
June 23, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
I recently purchased a Dell laptop for my wife, and I made sure it ran XP. My desktop, laptop, son’s desktop all run XP. I didn’t choose XP for her laptop just because all our machines run it, I chose it because a laptop with XP doesn’t drain the battery like Vista—-a “bloated” OS. To me, long battery life is one of the top 2 features I use in picking a laptop brand, and Vista does not handle that very well—-yet. If it gets less “power-hungry” down the road, I’ll consider it with a memory upgrade in the future. If I were buying a desktop, I would be inclined to use Vista, but not on a laptop where the user needs 3-5 hours of battery life. I keep looking at those Apple computers—-I may give in one day…..
By displaced
June 23, 2007 7:55 PM | Link to this
absolutely amazing!! You act as though there are a total of two operating systems!!! I’m a formal Level 2 tech for Dell tech support and a former Team Lead for Gateway tech support. How arrogant can you be? What does Windows do that Linux can’t do? play games? Have you checked what games linux can play? hmmm? go spend $500 for an operating system, another $300-$500 for office and those that actually know better will be using fedora core and ubuntu and getting all of this for free. oh yeah, that pretty desktop of vista’s? Try looking up beryl on youtube.com and see what a true 3D desktop looks like. like all versions of windows when they first come out, they have impossible system requirements, you can’t find drivers for anything and now we have this security that microsoft has tacked onto the operating system that makes it so difficult to use that most users will just turn it off. 200 new viruses a week and the biggest most bloated operating system microsoft has ever released. i’m sorry, the latest version of linus will run on a 450 mhz machine. windows can’t say that and never will. microsoft is in it for the money and they want you to spend as much as you can. my personal machine is way faster than these requirements, i have a 3.2 gig processor, 2 gigs of ram and the latest video card and sound card. why would i pay microsoft for anything i don’t need? what if you don’t like the desktop? you can do what? skin the desktop? and pay someone else for something you should have gotten with this huge waste of space? in linux I just uninstall it and install another. There are something like 14 different desktops that I can use and I don’t have to pay someone else for window blinds or any other skinning program. when Micro$oft upped the price and came out with 5 different versions of the operating system, I quit using it. by the way, I’m a MCSE certified network administrator and I don’t have windows installed on ANY of my servers. I don’t need that kind of security issue on my network. at last testing, the latest version of windows server looked like someone shot it full of holes when it was tested for security issues. like someone recently said to me, Windows is a game system pretending to be an operating system and doing a bad job of it. You can keep it. so what does windows do that linux can’t do? oh yeah, play games.
By Bill
June 23, 2007 8:45 PM | Link to this
Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule as a formal level 2 tech for Dell to drop by Displaced. Sure we’ve had some informal ones drop by but never a formal one. Keep that tuxedo clean and have a good day.
By John
June 23, 2007 8:52 PM | Link to this
Can someone explain to my why every time Microsoft releases a new OS it requires a new PC as well? I know Leopard doesn’t work on G3 machines anymore, but OSX had a great run with old machines for many years. Their OS works on existing technology…not just the newest. Yet, when MS upgrades the OS I’m forced to buy a new machine. What gives?
By Bill
June 24, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
Yeah, it’s frustrating John. And I remember - back when I started at the newspaper - taking an early model laptop computer out when covering stories. It had the word processor, communications software and operating system all on a single 3.5 inch disk. That was really elegant programming - when you look back and see all that can be done. And Unix and Linux folks would tell you now that they can use a much less powerful computer and it’ll still run fine using those operating systems. So you’re right.
But there’s also a counterpoint if you took things to an exreme and said you always wanted backwards compatibility at any cost. You’d run into limits where it would be impossible to add new features and more power because you’d be limited by that constraint.
So - I agree completely - that Vista takes up more resources than it should. That’s true in the case of Microsoft and how it does things. But - in general - there are times when you have to sacrifice backwards compatibility for progress.
By Brian Stanaland
June 24, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
Someone asked why all new Microsoft OSes practically require new computers. It’s because as far as operating systems go, Microsoft is selling hardware. They really could care less about retail Vista sales. It’s all about the OEM PC market.
By mike
June 24, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this
I work in IT and have installed vista on about 20 workstations so far.. Not one person has liked it and all of them have complained of slowness and crashing. STAY WITH XP PRO. If you think you know more then me fine go install vista. When you throw your mouse accross the room just remember I told you so.
By Kevin
June 24, 2007 11:28 PM | Link to this
I work on XP at work all day (Desktop support tech/network admin) and have tried Vista on a few machines. I won’t be touching Vista for quite some time at home or at work. I could NOT STAND that stupid cancel/allow pop-up that came up every single time I tried to do anything. That “Get a Mac” commercial with the Security guy standing behind PC is soooo TRUE. I laugh every time I watch that ad. I don’t have to worry about Vista at home because I’ve switched to a Mac. I’m running XP via Parallels (though not often) and I’m running OS X as my primary OS. I COULD NOT be happier! If you want a great computer with fantastic bundled software, give the mac a try. I’ve shown plenty of people my Macbook and now half my co-workers want a Mac. As Walt Mossberg or David Pogue (can’t remember which one) said, with Parallels and OS X you can run 100% of the worlds software. Sure can’t beat that!
By Bill
June 25, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
Kevin, you probably already know this but for others, here’s a link that tells you how to turn the cancel/allow feature off.
I’m not recommending - either for or against - just providing the link.
By sharkey
June 25, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
And games? Here’s a secret, a modern Mac IS a PC that can run Windows if you care to, so all your PC games and programs? You can run them just as fast or probably even faster than you can run them on that PC
NOT true. Video card drivers and and other performance enhancing things are geared to the PC and windows, not the Mac. There is a reason out there why hardcore gamers like myself bring PCs to lan parties, not Macs. But for video editing and other things like CAD, Macs are great. Just not for gaming.