bit-tech.net

Microsoft's Windows 8 upgrade paths detailed

Microsoft's Windows 8 upgrade paths detailed

Users will be able to upgrade Windows XP to Windows 8 - but won't be bringing their applications and settings along for the ride.

Microsoft has released details about which operating systems will and won't be able to upgrade to Windows 8 when it finally arrives in non-preview form.

According to a private announcement made by Microsoft to select partners and handily leaked to ZDNet, users will be able to upgrade to an equivalent or better Windows 8 version without losing their files providing they're sticking with the same processor architecture. In other words, upgrading from 32-bit Windows 7 to 32-bit Windows 8 is fine - but upgrading from 32-bit Windows 7 to 64-bit Windows 8 is a no-no.

The 'equivalent or better' proviso means that users of higher-end versions of previous Windows operating systems are locked to a similarly-priced version when they upgrade. In other words: if you splashed out on Windows 7 Ultimate but decide you don't really need the extra features, you'll be pushed toward Windows 8 Pro anyway.

Those running Windows 7 Starter, Windows 7 Home Basic, Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows Vista and - surprisingly - Windows XP will be given the option of upgrading to the basic Windows 8 release. Users with Windows 7 Professional or Windows 7 Ultimate don't get the option of Windows 8, instead finding Windows 8 Pro as their entry-level upgrade option. Finally, those running Windows 7 Enterprise will - unsurprisingly - be forced to buy Windows 8 Enterprise.

There's nothing to stop users spending extra and making the upgrade a bigger jump - even a Windows 8 Starter Edition can be upgraded to Windows 8 Pro or Enterprise should you so choose.

If you're eyeing up the Windows XP upgrade option and wondering if it's finally time to retire your old faithful friend, there is a slight catch: users upgrading from Windows XP SP3 or higher or Windows Vista pre-SP1 will find their installed programs and settings wiped, although their personal files transferred intact. Users upgrading from Windows Vista post-SP1, meanwhile, will be allowed to keep their settings.

Sadly, the leaked documents did not include the most important upgrade fact of all: the price.

42 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Madness_3d 29th June 2012, 13:20 Quote
Not for me thanks, Don't need a dumbed down operating system which is designed for tablets running on my desktop or laptop, I've tried the previews and I'm amazed that no one at Microsoft has turned round and asked "what the hell are we doing?!?!". I'll be sticking with 7 thanks, there's nothing wrong with it, I'll just hope they get the message about this metro rubbish and sort their act out for Win 9.
goldstar0011 29th June 2012, 13:26 Quote
I personally think they're cheaping out and making 1 OS for all devices, windows for PC and a new OS for tablets and phones like Apple do (I'm no apple fanboy btw)
Jehla 29th June 2012, 13:49 Quote
How long before release did MS do those £25 pre orders for windows 7?
I hope they do it for windows 8, while the start screen is a massive improvement over the start menu, I'm not sure I want to pay full whack for it.
Phil Rhodes 29th June 2012, 13:57 Quote
Lots of noise about "upgrades", much less noise about what we're expected to upgrade to. Considering that there have been no fundamantal changes to the way Windows works for the user in seventeen years, and that the headline metro UI is just clearly just one more of those things you switch off after install, I'd like to know what the attraction is supposed to be.
Sylvester20007 29th June 2012, 14:34 Quote
Oh Dear me... This cant be good.

People, let me give you clue about Windows 8....
1. It requires logon using a Live ID, this concerns me a little as I wounder what the T's & C's will say about what microsoft can log about your actions. How many times has your hotmail account been hacked and you had people telling you that your sending out spam???
2. The Start menu based part of windows (like the look we have in Win 7) is nothing more than an a virtual versio of windows 7 desktop. It also cant communicate with metro in terms of things like copy and paste. You copy text from the win 7 looking part but you cant paste it in the metro launched apps.
3. Win 8 has a lot of logging going on in it. Its the first big step to getting everyone into the cloud where your data is free to be accessed by any court or law agency with a idea that you might be a naughty person (this goes back to the T's & C's).

These are but a few issues with it that I can see. I also am a little concerned about what the guys at microsoft were smoking when they thought that the main interface of there flagship OS should be based on a touch screen design. I will never have a touch screen that is 50" in size, no will I get off my ass tio go up to it and put my grubby figer prints on my screen. I can see microsoft creating a kennetic for the desktop computer and I will not sit there and wave my hands around like some dementied wizzard in a disney film.

I love my logitech Denovo Edge KB, perfect for windows in a living room.

Failure is not an option....... It comes bundled with Windows 8

Syl
BRAWL 29th June 2012, 14:37 Quote
Tablet OS on a desktop... because that's a fantastic idea.
Jimbob 29th June 2012, 14:45 Quote
Untill I get some solid info on Media Center and Home Server integration I'nn not be upgrading my 3 HTPCs. With not much said about XBL, GFWL or DirectX thenn I'll not be upgrading my Gaming PC. One of my laptops has a touchscreen so maybe that will get an upgrade. So out of my 7 PCs Microsoft "may" get 1 purchase from me. Well done.
Nexxo 29th June 2012, 14:57 Quote
Windows 8 is not for us. It is not even for our machines. It is for the millions of ordinary muggles out there who only use computers for discrete tasks, and for hardware that will be rolling out in the next five years. Microsoft is going to clean up with this one, like Apple did with the iPad which people equally moaned about not being a "real computer" with a "real OS" and a keyboard. Like that stopped millions of people buying them and being perfectly happy with them.

Y'all supposed to be geeks. You're supposed to have vision, darnit! Now quit yer fussin' and start considerung what it is, rather than what it isn't.
p3n 29th June 2012, 15:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvester20007

1. It requires logon using a Live ID, this concerns me a little as I wounder what the T's & C's will say about what microsoft can log about your actions. How many times has your hotmail account been hacked and you had people telling you that your sending out spam???

Never... your 'teachings' have no weight when you confess to being a clown.
Zurechial 29th June 2012, 16:12 Quote
Why is there even a 32-bit version of Windows 8? :|
faugusztin 29th June 2012, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvester20007
1. It requires logon using a Live ID, this concerns me a little as I wounder what the T's & C's will say about what microsoft can log about your actions. How many times has your hotmail account been hacked and you had people telling you that your sending out spam???

a) It doesn't "require" use of Live ID. You are perfectly fine using only a local account. Or did you totally miss these screens ?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11427180/w8-1.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11427180/w8-2.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11427180/w8-3.png
b) if any email account is hacked, it is most times because user is stupid enough to install that nice "Perfectly harmless UPS delivery failure notification letter.exe".
c) do you know that the sender email address (the From field) is simply a text, and you can enter anything there ? I can send a email, which will say it was send by you, i only need to know your email address to do that.
d) show me that part of terms and conditions talks about what you just said. On my quick run through licence terms, there is no such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvester20007
2. The Start menu based part of windows (like the look we have in Win 7) is nothing more than an a virtual versio of windows 7 desktop. It also cant communicate with metro in terms of things like copy and paste. You copy text from the win 7 looking part but you cant paste it in the metro launched apps.

I seriously doubt you even used Windows 8. I just started the Release Preview, started Notepad, typed a text, copied it in clipboard, started Metro IE and pasted the text in the URL bar without any issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvester20007
3. Win 8 has a lot of logging going on in it. Its the first big step to getting everyone into the cloud where your data is free to be accessed by any court or law agency with a idea that you might be a naughty person (this goes back to the T's & C's).

ROFL. You install a preview version which exists to test what issues can be encountered durring the installation and use. Sure there is ton of stuff logged, it is called Microsoft Customer Experience Improvement Program. And by default all this stuff is disabled. It is a opt-in, not opt-out.

And what does Metro has with cloud is beyond my imagination. Or do you think apps on your iPhone/iPod/iPad/Android phone/Android tablet work only with cloud data ?
Boscoe 29th June 2012, 16:56 Quote
After trying Windows 8 preview I will most probably won't ever move away from hackintosh.
Gundam God 29th June 2012, 17:36 Quote
On the fence about win8 so might be sticking with Vista till 9 pops up at this rate. Does 8 add anything worthwhile?
schmidtbag 29th June 2012, 18:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
Why is there even a 32-bit version of Windows 8? :|

Because Windows is still by far the most behind in terms of 64 bit support. Mac and Linux are lightyears ahead with 64 bit support.


Anyways, I find it interesting they support an upgrade from XP. MS probably realized that its the only way to get rid of the remainder of XP users who don't want to pay full price for a new OS. The only people left using XP at this point will be those who know so little about computers that they don't even know they're running XP, people who can't upgrade because the hardware is too old, people who hate change, and/or people who just don't care about upgrading. I'm personally a little skeptical of how 8 will run on older hardware.
Aracos 29th June 2012, 18:41 Quote
Wow, such a terrible reaction to Windows 8 from the readers here. I honestly can't believe the reaction to the start menu being replaced with Metro. I'm not too fussed about Windows 8, it was relatively easy to use, some things were in different places but I soon got the hang of it and would consider upgrading if I found out what is different OS wise other than Metro. The only reason I'm not still using the preview is because Comodo and some other programs didn't work with it so I went back to Windows 7 until compatibility issues are sorted.
Zurechial 29th June 2012, 18:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Because Windows is still by far the most behind in terms of 64 bit support. Mac and Linux are lightyears ahead with 64 bit support.

In what regard? Xp 64-bit was barely supported by third-party vendors in terms of drivers, and Vista in general (32 & 64) suffered the same way initially but eventually caught up; while Users of Windows 7 64-bit suffer zero downsides in comparison to 32-bit.

In this day and age there is absolutely no reason for a modern OS to be released in 32-bit, so why are Microsoft even bothering?
All it does is contribute to consumer confusion and complicate the purchasing decision for the average person as well as increasing the number of SKUs vendors have to deal with.

Surely it's not as though the Pentium 4 market could really be worth pandering to in terms of the support costs of having two different versions of the OS (and all drivers) supported.
The kind of customer still using a 32-bit machine (whether personal or business) in 2012/2013 is unlikely to upgrade to Windows 8 in the first place.
schmidtbag 29th June 2012, 19:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
In what regard? Xp 64-bit was barely supported by third-party vendors in terms of drivers, and Vista in general (32 & 64) suffered the same way initially but eventually caught up.
What makes windows bad with 64 bit is how it still runs 32 bit versions of the same 64 bit processes (eating up a lot of memory), and even today there is still some compatibility issues. Mac and linux today don't need to double-up processes and nearly all 32 bit linux drivers are re-compiled for 64 bit. XP 64 bit was a nightmare, Vista's 64 bit was bad but usable, and 7 is overall pretty decent. I do understand that Mac and Linux from the beginning had the upper hand to just simply convert an architecture. I don't necessarily blame MS for Windows being behind in 64 bit. While I hate the company, it isn't really their fault and there wasn't a whole lot they could do about it. If anything, the blame goes to Intel and lazy software devs who didn't release 64 bit versions of products much sooner.
Quote:
In this day and age there is absolutely no reason for a modern OS to be released in 32-bit. Users of Windows 7 64-bit suffer zero downsides in comparison to 32-bit, so why are Microsoft even bothering with a 32-bit release this time around?
All it does is contribute to consumer confusion and complicate the purchasing decision for the average person.
I completely agree, but the problem is all those people holding onto their P4s and old Celerons, and those who refuse to switch to 64 bit when they have the opportunity.
Quote:
Surely it's not as though the Pentium 4 market could really be worth pandering to in terms of the support costs of having two different versions of the OS (and all drivers) supported.
The kind of customer still using a 32-bit machine (whether personal or business) in 2012/2013 is unlikely to upgrade to Windows 8 in the first place.
I agree with that too, and I personally feel those people should be left behind. Unfortunately, companies can't just ignore them because there is likely more of those people than Mac users.

As I've stated before, Win 8 probably has the XP upgrade because it's the only way for MS to get rid of XP users. Since probably 99% of all XP users are 32 bit, Win8 is going to be stuck with a 32 bit release. It wouldn't surprise me if Win8 will be the last x86 based OS they release with a 32 bit version.
Star*Dagger 29th June 2012, 19:27 Quote
If you are upgrading from XP in 2012 the install screen should mock you as a moron for an hour.
Yslen 29th June 2012, 22:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvester20007
Oh Dear me... This cant be good.

People, let me give you clue about Windows 8....
1. It requires logon using a Live ID, this concerns me a little as I wounder what the T's & C's will say about what microsoft can log about your actions. How many times has your hotmail account been hacked and you had people telling you that your sending out spam???
2. The Start menu based part of windows (like the look we have in Win 7) is nothing more than an a virtual versio of windows 7 desktop. It also cant communicate with metro in terms of things like copy and paste. You copy text from the win 7 looking part but you cant paste it in the metro launched apps.
3. Win 8 has a lot of logging going on in it. Its the first big step to getting everyone into the cloud where your data is free to be accessed by any court or law agency with a idea that you might be a naughty person (this goes back to the T's & C's).

Erm... all three of those points are completely wrong. The live ID is optional, the metro and desktop environments do interact as you'd expect them to and there is no difference between this and any other operating system when it comes to your rights over data stored in the cloud.
Yslen 29th June 2012, 22:10 Quote
Also, I've be running Windows 8 for a few weeks on my laptop and I think it's great. It's quicker and has more features, but is otherwise the same as 7. Yeah, the start menu looks different, but I personally think it's faster and more intuitive to use than the old one, even without a touchscreen.
schmidtbag 29th June 2012, 22:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
Yeah, the start menu looks different, but I personally think it's faster and more intuitive to use than the old one, even without a touchscreen.

This is the part where I think you're crazy. The new start menu is undoubtedly slower to use no matter what perspective you look in. The buttons are gigantic, which means it takes longer to point your mouse to an icon (this is relevant to laptops) and it means you have to spend more time scrolling through the menu items to find something. Whether you're on a tablet or not, this is slower than the classic start menu or the menu interface that iOS and Android use.

The metro interface is also cluttered with non-application items, slowing down your navigation further. The one and only thing that makes metro faster is it's more colorful and uses large icons, making things faster to recognize in your peripheral vision. However, as I've stated before, if you've got a bunch of things installed, it will take just as long (if not longer) than the classic menu. If you maintain a clean start menu and/or distribute your most commonly used programs to the desktop and remove them from the start menu, then the classic menu is plenty fast.

I've also noticed Metro is relatively resource demanding, so depending on your system, it's slower to use.


My gripe about technology these days is companies are trying WAY too hard to find replacements for things that have been proven to be effective for around 15 years, whether that be games running at 60FPS, keyboards + mice, overall GUI, and so on. Sure there are plenty of things that have replacements and are good ones, such as SSDs, cloud storage, or PCI-e, but sometimes I feel like companies don't put any thought into whether something is practical. As I see it, if it doesn't actually improve production/usage and if the cost difference is too drastic, the product shouldn't be a big focus. Metro tries too hard to be something its not.
SexyHyde 30th June 2012, 04:59 Quote
well i was thinking about 'maybe' getting Win8 for my tv PC, but the more i used it the more i thought it's just not worth the hassle. reminds we of some of the linux distros i used ten years back.
fluxtatic 30th June 2012, 06:44 Quote
I'm skipping 8. I held onto XP until sometime in '10, as I recall. I'd spent a long, long time tweaking XP to be just the way I liked it, and I didn't want to give that up. I finally broke down and installed 7, and I dig the hell out of it. I went on a work trip a while back, and a colleague (the only honest-to-god Windows fanboy I know) let me borrow a laptop with Win8 DP. Hated it with a burning passion. He still raves about it - he's installed every preview release and it practically slavering at the prospect of actually being able to get the final retail version. For myself, on the other hand, the more information that comes out, the less I want it.

Shouldn't be entirely surprised about the XP upgrade, though - MS is probably pissed now that they extended support for XP to '14. I was rebuilding a PC at work today and had to reinstall from original media, XP SP2. Lo and behold, if you're on SP2, you can't get to Windows Update anymore. You have to install SP3 first. I think they're pushing as hard as they can to kill XP as quickly as possible (now, rather than 3 years ago when they should have...even sooner if Vista hadn't been such a disaster.)

As others have pointed out elsewhere, MS has a definite tendency to go every-other on good releases of Windows. 7 - good, Vista - bad, 2000 - good, ME - bad...gets fuzzy there - 98SE was good, 98 not so good, 95...well, it was the first modern version of Windows.

For that matter, I was on Win98 until 2006, if I remember right, so maybe I just like to lag :P
faugusztin 30th June 2012, 10:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
This is the part where I think you're crazy. The new start menu is undoubtedly slower to use no matter what perspective you look in. The buttons are gigantic, which means it takes longer to point your mouse to an icon (this is relevant to laptops) and it means you have to spend more time scrolling through the menu items to find something. Whether you're on a tablet or not, this is slower than the classic start menu or the menu interface that iOS and Android use.

If you were using start menu using mouse, then you were using it wrong for few years in first place. How different is :
1) Windows Vista/7: Windows key (or Ctrl+Esc), type few letters from the application name, Enter (or few arrow movements before Enter).
2) Windows 8 - alternative 1 : Windows+Q, type few letters from the application name, Enter (or few arrow movements before Enter).
3) Windows 8 - alternative 2 : if you are on Start screen (if not, press the Windows key), then type few letters from the application name, Enter (or few arrow movements before Enter).

The Start screen is not your replacement for start menu. It is your new desktop.
law99 30th June 2012, 10:44 Quote
win+q. Is that going to equal win+r but with the search feature of the start menu then? Always liked that dock type thing in Ubuntu when I used it. The one where you just type on the desktop and it brings up apps. I think it would even recognise recent web pages and files/folders.
faugusztin 30th June 2012, 10:46 Quote
It is the same search feature of the start menu. And if you are on a start screen, you don't even need to press that button. Just start typing.
NethLyn 30th June 2012, 13:22 Quote
So the real upshot is that you still have the option of doing your own backups, zapping the hard disk and then you choose any version you like? Cool. My rellie's PC is single core so struggles with 32-Bit Vista, the last OS it'll ever run. Whenever there's a new build I'll just use the spare licence from the Windows 7 family pack and that will be that.

I'll assume the future Xbox will have a crossover version of whatever Win 8 looks like after its SP1 so that's probably the first time I'll have to deal with it all the time.
Cthippo 30th June 2012, 14:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
The only people left using XP at this point will be those who know so little about computers that they don't even know they're running XP, people who can't upgrade because the hardware is too old, people who hate change, and/or people who just don't care about upgrading.

I resemble those last two!

My primary machine still runs XP pro 64 and will continue to, even though I'm probably about to do a major hardware upgrade on it. The bottom line for me is that I have yet to see a compelling reason to upgrade, and I find the Win7 UI to be a colossal pain in the arse. There is nothing I have a need to do which I cannot do on my current OS, and I refuse to upgrade just because there is something new out there!
schmidtbag 30th June 2012, 15:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
If you were using start menu using mouse, then you were using it wrong for few years in first place.
Based on what you described, if I'm using the mouse then no, I still didn't use it wrong. What you described is interfacing by keyboard, which is a different story. And yes, keyboard is often faster (being mainly a linux user, I prefer the terminal sometimes since its faster) but if what you're looking for isn't at the tip of your tongue or if you're a slow typist, then the keyboard isn't the fastest way to navigate either. Generally speaking, the mouse with a clean classic start menu is the fastest way to get something done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo
I resemble those last two!

My primary machine still runs XP pro 64 and will continue to, even though I'm probably about to do a major hardware upgrade on it. The bottom line for me is that I have yet to see a compelling reason to upgrade, and I find the Win7 UI to be a colossal pain in the arse. There is nothing I have a need to do which I cannot do on my current OS, and I refuse to upgrade just because there is something new out there!

I used to highly agree with this, but then I found that Win7 can be dumbed down a lot and it really did prove to perform better. I still utterly hate parts of 7's UI such as control panel options and the new media player, but everything else is pretty quick to getting used to. I wouldn't say I prefer the other changes but they don't bother me anymore either.
faugusztin 30th June 2012, 16:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Based on what you described, if I'm using the mouse then no, I still didn't use it wrong. What you described is interfacing by keyboard, which is a different story. And yes, keyboard is often faster (being mainly a linux user, I prefer the terminal sometimes since its faster) but if what you're looking for isn't at the tip of your tongue or if you're a slow typist, then the keyboard isn't the fastest way to navigate either. Generally speaking, the mouse with a clean classic start menu is the fastest way to get something done.

In that case - move your mouse to the right top or bottom corner, click on Search, click on Apps and browse the list. Same amount of clicks as - move your mouse to the left bottom corner where your Start button is, click on it, click on All programs and browse the tree.
ADJB 30th June 2012, 20:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
Why is there even a 32-bit version of Windows 8? :|

The only people left using XP at this point will be those who know so little about computers that they don't even know they're running XP, people who can't upgrade because the hardware is too old, people who hate change, and/or people who just don't care about upgrading.

And the tens if not hundreds of millions of business PC's which haven't upgraded to Win 7 and can't for useability reasons upgrade to Win 8.

As far as business is concerned this is just going to drift on past and not even going to be considered because of the retraining costs for every employee and the fact that like most OS releases massive amounts of highly bespoke software is going to need re-writing. At least with Win 7 most software will work with a some minor tweaks in XP mode and it looks enough like XP not to require user retraining. A decent group profile means a Win 7 machine is identical to a XP machine from the users point of view but if, as has been reported, there isn't a easy way to switch metro off and have the normal start menu and corporate screen, business wont look at this. If, and this is a very big if, there is a built in XP VM some places might consider it but only because it will look, feel and work in an identical manor to XP.
adidan 30th June 2012, 21:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
The only people left using XP at this point will be those who know so little about computers that they don't even know they're running XP, people who can't upgrade because the hardware is too old, people who hate change, and/or people who just don't care about upgrading.
I have XP on one of my PCs.

You omitted to include those too lazy to get around to putting on that Win7 upgrade that's been laying on the shelf for 6 months. :D

Happy with Win7. In fact I'm happy with Vista on one of my other PCs, since it was released there have been so many updates that it runs like Win7 wearing different shoes.

Windows 8. No. No thanks.
MikeO 1st July 2012, 10:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
The Start screen is not your replacement for start menu. It is your new desktop.

Lolnope. Quick registry edit and Metro is banished to the consumerist pit that it came from.
Santa-san 1st July 2012, 17:57 Quote
Maybe ms over time might be able to convince home users to buy this..experiment, but I cannot for my life see how they are going to convince ANY company to switch to Windows 8. Ever. The only way as I see it, is to force companies over to Win8 with "Win8 only" apps, services, support etc. :-/

Personally, I guess I'm like a lot of other users with going 8 from 7. And to be honest, I really don't feel like learning a new OS at the moment, I want to turn on my computers and..use them.
If I was forced to learn a new OS, then I'd rather have a try with Linux. At least that seems rather user-friendly. :)
Spreadie 2nd July 2012, 12:43 Quote
MS is definitely following the Star Trek movie rule - every second one is trash. ;)
Spreadie 3rd July 2012, 08:10 Quote
Quote:

Yes, very informative. :|

Why don't you throw up some Venn Diagrams too, while we do a group read of Covey's Seven Habits.
silky 3rd July 2012, 16:41 Quote
U mad bro? Bargaining is next.
Krikkit 3rd July 2012, 19:17 Quote
Take it easy guys, it's just software. :p
Nexxo 3rd July 2012, 19:40 Quote
Worden's tasks of grieving seem appropriate. Then Prochaska & Diclemente's model of change. :p
silky 3rd July 2012, 23:53 Quote
Lol. I only see a positive side. If it turns out good, then great, I'll get it some time. If it turns out bad then no probs, I will stick with my trusty Win7 which I love anyway. And at least the buyers of OS's seem to be more contemplative and less reactionary so if it is truly bad, I can rely on people to vote with their wallets and just pass it by, like what happened with Vista, the chocolate teapot of the OS world.

I just wish gaming was more like that, but for whatever reason, buggy uninspired games sell by the boat load.
ClunkingFist 4th July 2012, 04:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidan
Happy with Win7. In fact I'm happy with Vista on one of my other PCs, since it was released there have been so many updates that it runs like Win7 wearing different shoes.

Yep, you can buy Vista Business (retail) for as little as $NZ30 on auction websites, so why wouldn’t you? I have two machines running it: the kids' gaming machines (Spore GA/Minecraft, nothing too demanding) runs perfectly, if a little slow to boot. Picked up Vista Ultimate (64-bit) for $NZ90 for my own machine: the OS is fine, it's the Antec alleged silent case that lets the side down.
I have a couple of machines running 7, and the only real difference I notice is boot time. And I have a couple of machines running XP. XP in conjunction with PowerDVD and remote selector are great for running an old projector, borrowed from the office, keeps the kids quiet during school holidays.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums