should i? would i? upgrade from xp to vista basic?


R

Russell

now that vista is in nearly every new computer on earth, i will assume that
most of the bugs are worked out.
so, my desktop came with windows xp.
i recently downloaded and ran that windows vista upgrade advisor thing, and
apparently my computer can upgrade, with very few issues, the basic windows
vista.

my question is two fold.

1. has anyone upgraded their xp operating system to any version of vista,
and liked it? suffered no ill effects? and are very happy you did this?

2. should i decide to upgrade from my xp system to windows vista basic, can
i roll back to xp thru, say, add/remove, if my system suffers dramatically?

all comments, negative and positive are desired. i want to know what im
getting into before i do this....if i do it.

thanks folks

russell munson
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Max

a) Never assume that.

1) Yes, I'm sure many people have done that--some are happy, some are not.
2) If the 'Upgrade Advisor' suggested Vista Basic, your machine in it's
current form is marginal at best.
2b) No, there is no easy or automatic rollback. To reinstall XP you would
likely need to format the drive and start over.
 
N

Naku

If your a gamer I'd dual boot it with XP.....cus i was forced to upgrade to
home basic and iv had to reinstalls ONE game 4 times and another game twice
and oblivion sounds screws up sometimes and refuses to run in full screen
when i have 4 times the power required to play any of these games i have all
the patches for the games and all the updates for vista so install at your
own risk...
 
W

woody

I upgraded from XP, and so far am not happy. My upgrade was to "home premium".
I'm on these boards because my computer now acts like it's 10 years old,
when it's only 1 year old. very slow! but the guys on this forum are trying
to help me get it right. we'll see.
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

I upgraded from XP, and so far am not happy. My upgrade was to "home premium".
I'm on these boards because my computer now acts like it's 10 years old,
when it's only 1 year old. very slow! but the guys on this forum are trying
to help me get it right. we'll see.


Vista needs considerably more/faster hardware than XP. In particular
it needs a lot more RAM. How much do you have (and what is the rest of
your hardware configuration)? The lack of RAM may well be the reason
for the slowness.
 
R

Russell

well, that really pretty much clears it up for me.
i will leave my system alone. wait until its time for a new computer to get
vista.
i love my xp anyway, but i like to keep current.
but in this case, i will leave well enough alone

thank you guys. i really appreciate your replies. everyone of you had
something helpful to add, and im convinced.

thanks dudes and dudettes.

russell
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Russell

your right. if you assume you make an........well, you are right sir.
your post informing me of the inability to roll back my system to the way it
is now was most helpful in my decision.
thanks max
 
R

Russell

woody, your reply scared the vista right outta me. ive heard other say the
same thing. slows the system down. and i do alot of stuff, have alot of
programs on my computer.
so, thanks. no vista for me.
 
R

Russell

comphulk, your mention of photo work put the finishing touches on my decision.
photowork is what i do. its what my computer is most geared to, and i
dont/cant mess with that.
thanks bud, or budette as the case me be.
 
R

Russell

im not a gamer in the sense you mean, naku. but should i decide to download
HALO, i want to be able to play it. vista can wait, and thanks for your
comment.
 
R

Russell

woody, i think i put my reply to your post in the wrong spot. so i wanted to
say again that your post freaked me out the most.
i love my xp system, it works fine. why in the world should i do anything
that might make my computer act any older than it already is..(and getting
older quickly, but thats ok).
thanks woody. vista can stay in microsofts servers for now. i will get a
new computer soon enought and by then, who knows, there will probably be
another OS even "better" that vista.
r
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Russell

that makes sense, ken. like any other installation, vista's gonna take up
more of my ram. ive got a lot of stuff on my computer, mostly photoshop
stuff, photo programs, and if vista takes that much ram to run, then i would
most certainly have issues.
thanks for your sub reply. very helpful
 
W

woody

Ken,
I have 1024 MB of ram, Intel core duo E6300 processor, Intel graphics media
acceleraor 3000, and my "vista experience score" is 3.5. I understand from
you and others that 2 GB of ram is prefferred, however why didn't microsoft
tell me that before I went to the trouble of installing Vista? Now I'm stuck
with an underpowered system for Vista and forced to pay up for more memory in
order to do the exact same things I did before with XP. All for slightly
cooler looking wndows and a gadget bar. woohoo, what a deal...
 
W

woody

You're quite welcome Russell. I'm still holding out hope that I can tweak
this thing to work without coughing up a few hundred bucks to make it right.
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

that makes sense, ken. like any other installation, vista's gonna take up
more of my ram. ive got a lot of stuff on my computer, mostly photoshop
stuff, photo programs, and if vista takes that much ram to run, then i would
most certainly have issues.
thanks for your sub reply. very helpful


You're welcome. Glad to help.

In particular, if you run PhotoShop, you need *lots* of memory. Many
people *without* PhotoShop need 2GB. With it, you probably need even
more. Very rarely does a machine upgraded from XP have enough RAM for
Vista with Photoshop. It's not be surprising that you're not happy
with the results.
 
Ad

Advertisements

K

Ken Blake, MVP

Ken,
I have 1024 MB of ram, Intel core duo E6300 processor, Intel graphics media
acceleraor 3000, and my "vista experience score" is 3.5. I understand from
you and others that 2 GB of ram is prefferred,


Although some others say that, I'm not willing to do so. How much RAM
you need for good performance depends on what apps you run and what
you do with them. For many people running Vista, 1GB *is* enough;
others need 2GB or more.

however why didn't microsoft
tell me that before I went to the trouble of installing Vista?



Two points:

1. As I said above, it's not a one-size-fits-all situation. Different
people need different amounts of RAM for decent performance, depending
on how they use they computer. Microsoft doesn't know how you use your
computer.

2. Microsoft has a long history of telling people the *minimum*
requirements to run a particular software product, not the
requirements to run with what might be considered adequate
performance. That's for three reasons:

a. Adequate performance, as I said above,
depends on what you do.

b. Your view of what constitutes adequate
performance might not be the same as mine. My
wife, for example, is satisfied with performance
that would drive me crazy, and resists my
offers to upgrade her computer.

c. Like other vendors selling products of any
type, they want to convince you to buy,
not scare you away. The grocery store, when it
advertises steak for $2.99 a pound, doesn't tell
you that it's 40% bone and 20% fat either.

Now I'm stuck
with an underpowered system for Vista and forced to pay up for more memory in
order to do the exact same things I did before with XP.


If you need an extra RAM of memory, yes it costs extra, but
fortunately not very much. RAM is pretty cheap these days.

All for slightly
cooler looking wndows and a gadget bar. woohoo, what a deal...



If you think the improvements in Vista were not worth the cost of
upgrading, OK, but you have nobody but yourself to blame for not doing
your homework before buying it. Simply believing what the ads tell
you, whether you're buying an operating system, steak, or anything
else, is foolhardy, and will cause you to waste a lot of money over
the years.

If you had asked my opinion before deciding to upgrade, I would have
given you my standard answer, as follows:

A change of operating system should be driven by need, not just
because there is a new version available. Are you having a problem
with Windows XP that you expect Vista to solve? Do you have or expect
to get new hardware or software that is supported in Vista, but not in
XP? Is there some new feature in Vista that you need or yearn for?
Does your job require you have skills in Vista? Are you a computer
hobbyist who enjoys playing with whatever is newest?

If the answer to one or more of those questions is yes (and your
hardware is adequate for Vista), then you should get Vista. Otherwise
most people should stick with what they have. There is *always* a
learning curve and a potential for problems when you take a step as
big as this one, regardless of how wonderful whatever you're
contemplating moving to is. Sooner or later you'll have to upgrade (to
Vista or its successor) because you'll want support for hardware or
software that you can't get in Vista, but don't rush it.

I say all the above despite the fact that I'm a big Vista fan. I think
it's the best and most stable of all versions of Windows.

But for someone contemplating buying a new system, and wondering what
operating system to get with it, I definitely recommend Vista.
 
R

Russell

charlie, your saying there is a way to put my operating system BACK to XP,
should i find to many conflicts with a vista basic upgrade?
would you help me understand how to do this?

thanks
russell
 
R

Russell

yes, that would certainly be a problem. my OS was meant to run xp, and vista,
along with the stuff ive uploaded to my computer since i got it, would
definately tax the memory and the power i have to run these programs. i can
foresee my computer freezing and blowing up, should i try and make it run
what it doesnt have the power to run.

i always want to be using the most current software and programs on my
computer....especially the operating system, (after beta of course), so i
think its time to get a new computer. one that has vista installed, and
one that has other programs bundled into the computer, that are compatible
with vista.

so, maybe after christmas i will start looking for a nice shiny new
computer. not too expensive, something with mostly media and photo software,
and the other normal microsoft stuff that comes with a new computer. IE7, and
vista of course.
any recomendations? this computer is an HP pavilion, 70 gigs of hard drive,
not even sure what the ram is on it. i know nothing about the hardware stuff

but, ive enjoyed this computer for about 5 years now, and ive not even come
close to using up half of the hard drive space. and ive got hundreds and
hundreds of photos and mp3's on the thing.
so my first choice would be another HP.
You? what computer would you recommend?

thanks ken
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Russell

woody, man, i sympathize with you dude. and your right....its those
commercials that show us how cool that vista 3d stuff looks, and the way
those folders scroll across the screen like a hologram fan or something.
so, yeah, its a tempting thing.
but its posts like yours, even tho youve had issues, that can guide the rest
of us into not making that decision that screws the 'puter up.

so thanks for posting man. of course, some will "give vista a try" anyway,
and thats ok for them i guess. but for me, im not gonna fix what aint broken.

thanks woody
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top