should i use my xp retail or xp oem to upgrade to w7

[ezeht]

thanks for the help.

I tried to delete this thread the site will not let me.

 

[sup3rsprt]

if i read right. when i upgrade to w7 my key for my retail xp pro sp2 will be no more good. i will not be able to install or use my retail xp again. is this right?

It's probable. I don't think anyone but Microsoft really knows. Afaik they haven't explained how it works yet (and maybe never will, in which case people will need to find out for themselves).

I am going to guess that you will be able to reuse the XP disc again in the future if you need to do a clean install of Windows 7. But you may need to call up Microsoft to get a valid license in order to do it.

 

[DeaconFrost]

SP3 for XP has been safe for a long long time now. Anyway, if it was me, and I was assuming all the rhetoric is true about upgrading, I'd use the OEM license to do the upgrade, given that it would be invalid afterwards. That still leaves a retail license available for use.

 

[sup3rsprt]

SP3 for XP has been safe for a long long time now.

I agree, but it depends on who you talk to. Some people say it doesn't work, but I think they are trying to update their computer with the service pack rather than slipstreaming and a clean install which is what I would recommend.

 

[DeaconFrost]

If it is like SP2, it will cause some issues with a system riddled with malware, so maybe that's where some are getting that it isn't stable/safe.

 

[ezeht]

thanks sup3

sup3 i was just looking at your system specs. you say you still prefer xp. ha ha. i skipped vista. i read it was hell for the most part. and read ms business its self dropped it or would not even use it. thats as bad as it gets maybe. but ive read w7 is pretty sweet.

i have not seen in person or used vista or w7. i wish i could just stay with xp. i get confused when i read actual support or updates for xp will end. i read its either the end of this year or 2014. or im confused on different parts will be supported or what ever. its just freaken confusing. so i figured support will end this year. so. i bought this w7 upgrade.

i figure i will install and try and set up and test delete and re install a few times before im happy with it. installing xp quickly and pretty lean is pretty easy for me. and i use tune up utilities 2004 to tweak xp and ie6 and turn off junk like alexa for wmp and turn off all the prompts and some extra stuff i dont need.

this is my gaming machine. i just put games and security and a few programs to record or edit in game movies etc thats about it. i hope i can find tune up programs for w7. im sure its all sorts of other junk eating up memory id like to turn off. this system will have a 4 gig mem kit. i should get it this week. i wanted 2x 4 gigs but dont have the cash. i think ive seen some tweak like guides for w7. i might have seen stuff like that on this site. i need my system as lean clean and fast running as possible to play my games and make movies etc.

guess im lucky to have my crt monitor and not a high res stuck at native res lcd. well as long as my crt lasts that is. i more less hope to get some dx10 fx. i dont think its many games that really use it tho. the standard is changing again. id be happy to pay for a dx10 upgrade for xp and skip all of the rest of this stuff..

from reading you and others. well xp is faster better than vista or w7. why have vista or w7. ha ha. some might laugh but i love and only use ie6. after sp2 and with good security and the fact all the other browsers need ie6 extensions to work. i can care less about tabs. not only do i have to learn w7 but ie8 too. i hope 4 gigs will be good enough. i might try and add my 2 gig kit and see if i can run 6 gigs total. i read i will need it for vista- w7. ha ha.

ya i wish i could just stay with xp. see ya..

 

[sup3rsprt]

Yes I still prefer XP on my gaming computer. Obviously you will not find a great deal of people with this opinion on sevenforums, but that's fine. It's really up to you to determine what you like best. Have fun with it

 

[ezeht]

um xp sp2 sp3 stuff

well i know it was problems going sp1 to sp2 and then sp2 to sp3. and what bothered me most about going sp2 to sp3 is.

i read over and over lots of folks after installing or up grading to sp3. folks would lose use of their optical drives. they would not show up in the os. or would drop out later. working drives with sp2 and even brand new drives. and said it just kills them and the drives would not work in a different system either after sp3 ruined them.

ms has pages of try this try that its your computer junk. go in and change the tree all sorts of junk and nothing fixed it nor did ms take any blame.. as said the systems ran fine before the sp3 upgrades.. ha ha id have a fit.

but maybe too thats the problem. upgrades. maybe a xp disc that comes with sp3 already on it has less problems im not sure. but. im disabled and poor. i dont have money to waste on opti drives and i could skip any other compatibility problems i might have by not using sp3. i skip sp3 update every month and new indexing system and all that junk too. xp and ie6 after sp2 and with good security is a great os and browser.

i laugh when i see new security updates for ff every other day. and other browsers dont work with out ie6 extensions. they are really no faster. i dont need or like tabs. opera was pretty fast. but had its own problems too. all of them do. ie6 is simple and easy for me. i skip the others. but will use ie8 for w7

sp2 is great for me. i keep my system lean tuned up and have great security. im good to go. i will glady piss away my xp oem key to install and use my w7. i will keep my retail xp key..

thanks..

 

[DeaconFrost]

i bought this w7 upgrade.

If you plan to install and reinstall many times, you may want to consider a full version, rather than an upgrade. Or, wait until final upgrade details are announced.

guess im lucky to have my crt monitor and not a high res stuck at native res lcd.

Some of us can't look at a CRT for more than 30-45 minutes without getting a headache. LCDs use far less power, are better for your eyes, and have a much smaller desktop footprint. Besides, whenever you are doing anything from reading a web page to any sort of content creation, you LOVE that screen real estate. The nature of the UI is moving to a widescreen format anyway, which is one more plus in favor of LCDs.

from reading you and others. well xp is faster better than vista or w7. why have vista or w7. ha ha.

See, that's the thing. You haven't tried anything new, so how to you know XP is better? Vista has it's plusses and minuses, but W7 has pretty much all plusses at this point. It's been shown by many reputable websites that it is on par, or faster in gaming than XP, and it hasn't even been publicly released yet. If you ask most people who have given Windows 7 a fair try, they'll tell you it is painful going back to XP. I'd be one of them. Windows 7 is much snappier, even on the same system. I have 12 identical towers and 17 identical laptops in my company, and all but two are running XP. Those two are sitting on my desk, running Windows 7 Pro, and they are easily more responsive than any of those other systems.

On the subject of tweaking, that's one more reason to like Windows 7. You don't need to tweak it. Install the latest drivers, don't have a bunch of crap running at start up, like IM programs, and then spend your time enjoying the system, rather than chasing unicorns for some non-existent performance gain.

 

[sup3rsprt]

spend your time enjoying the system, rather than chasing unicorns for some non-existent performance gain.

If Windows 7 was really faster in gaming then I would be using it to play all of my games. But for the most part it is slower, so I don't.

Maybe (hopefully) in the future when the DirectX improvements start to become a reality (and more widespread) this will be a different story.

It's still a pity that Microsoft got rid of the hardware acceleration feature that Windows XP has that makes many games perform and sound better. For example, I can't even get Crysis to run in Vista or Windows 7 without severly stuttering and crackling audio. In XP it plays fine, (btw the DirectX 10 features are a joke, as Windows XP can do most of the same effects in DirectX 9 and faster at that)

 

[DeaconFrost]

I gave some links in another thread, and some quick googling would turn them up, but many reputable sites are showing Windows 7 to be on par, or better than XP in gaming. I believe the primary one I've used here is from FiringSquad.

Here's the beginning of the comparison:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/

Here's the conclusion page:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/page12.asp

Now, I'm not dumb enough to say everyone's individual system will mimick their results, but my point is, one individual's opinions doesn't trump a repeated test, and one who's results are repeated by other websites as well. You may not think so, but for the majority of comparisons, Windows 7 comes out on top.

Given all the other features and benefits of Windows 7, and the fact that Windows 7 will hold its own against XP, the choice is pretty cut and dry. Besides, if this is a gaming system, where performance matters, you'll be running 4 GB of system memory (or more), which means you should be running an x64 OS. XP x64 was fine for some tasks, and Vista x64 ran well, but Windows 7 x64 is the best choice of the three.

 

[ezeht]

ha ha thanks deacon.

ya ive read people are pretty happy with w7 beta rc etc. more so than was people with vista. i take my time. i dont have money to burn. i read most people hated vista that was good enough for me. i read. and have friends who i trust too. i do not just buy for hype advertisements and fan boys or lies. and ya. vista its said to be a lot better now too..

i know when they was first talking about w7 said it would be modular. can add or delete what you wanted to and make it lean. that would have been sweet.

um my crt. well ya some of what you say is dead on. less space and energy. but i can easy change hrz and res. text larger and more easy on the eyes. and first and foremost im a gamer. i play my games some 17 hours a day every day..

to get a good lcd for gaming id want none wide 1280x1024 2ms. but is said will pretty much suck for text or normal desktop use. or get more high res lcd with 5-6-8 or more ms speed and suck for gaming and be stuck at what ever the lcd's native res is 1280x1024 what ever. if i change native res well my picture will suck. so in my opinion and for gaming and versatility its no comparison that my crt hands down is better short energy use or more desk top space taken up. i think lcd's are more a rip than anything else. but thats my opinion.

even 4:3 or wide view is a matter of opinion. wide cutes off the top and bottom but can see more side to side.. none wide you see less side to side but more top and bottom. i prefer the 4:3 format my self. but could get use to wide lcd if they was not fixed native res. my systems are older. i cant run my games and record them running 1650x1050 or more high what ever.

i laugh so hard when folks cry his new system cant run some of his games on max settings and then see he has some extra large wide screen and running 1920 by god what ever high res. its just so funny.. ha ha them extra high res are just great for glorified surfing or porn or viewing movies.. but might be to high to run many games. and they are stuck with it. and have not put it together in their heads yet..

to just game. i can play most my games high settings 1600x1200 @ 85 hrz. but for performance while recording or for larger text when reading on my desktop i run 1024x768 @ 75hrz i adjust brightness on the fly as needed. my eyes do not bother me. room light the more bright helps too..

to each his own.. but you can get ghosting while gaming even on the fastest lcd what 2ms.. for gaming crt's is still best. other than that. ya lcd's are fine.. but i will be forced to use lcd when this monitor goes to heaven. you cant really buy crt's any more..i will hate the day my crt dies for sure..

see ya

 

[sup3rsprt]

To me it doesn't really matter what some random website says when all evidence points to another conclusion.

I would challenge someone to post evidence (screenshots) proving that Windows 7 is faster, but the sad reality is that most people don't know what they're doing when it comes to benchmarking.

 

[ezeht]

ha ha

well i can just read pretty much 1 sentence and tell ya off the bat. xp is the better performer with just 2 gigs of memory versus 4 to 8 gigs or more to use vista or w7. why is so much memory needed for vista or w7 because its tons of godless garbage running in the back ground or something. tracking cookies or some thing what ever ms is doing in the back ground. or 50 screens in screen or what ever. im sure i dont need it what ever it is.. i run my games and record them and use my desk top just fine with 32bit xp and just 2 gigs of memory.

if its more fancy and uses more resources than xp and ie6. its more than i need period.. is how i feel about it.. id use 3rd party programs and strip down xp for gaming if i did not think it was to much a head ake.. but ive learned to work with tweak and like xp pretty well. so..

and another thing trips me out. its still maybe 2 to 1 computers on this earth that use xp over vista. and ie6 its native browser. all of these sites are trying to force you to use ie7-8 or ff or some google junk. well i avoid and skip them sites. if they do not support my ie6 i dont need their sites for anything.. i dont need all of that bloated garbage and more used resources or indexing none of it.. but will be forced to at least use ie8 when i upgrade to w7..

and ya. i did skip vista. but its said w7 is better. so i will gladly upgrade to w7.

 

[sup3rsprt]

Yeah no doubt Windows 7 is much better than Vista. There are a few things that still disappoint me about Windows 7 but I'm not going to bash it too hard because it's a good system overall.

 

[DeaconFrost]

sad reality is that most people don't know what they're doing when it comes to benchmarking.

You're right, which is why those sites are even MORE important, because they use actual games, and not synthetic testing, such as 3DMark. You need to be very careful in how you present your opinion, because it differs from "all evidence". All evidence, if you want to use such a blanket statement, is pointing towards Windows 7 being faster. You're own individual experience doesn't agree, but that isn't "all evidence". This can be very misleading to someone posting in here asking for advice.

One person's experience doesn't trump repeatable tests...that's the basis of the scientific method...of testing anything. This isn't an Xbox, where everyone's hardware and software levels are identical, so it is certainly possible for one person to have a different experience....but we can't pretend that supersedes anyone else's experience, or repeatable tests.

 

[DeaconFrost]

well i can just read pretty much 1 sentence and tell ya off the bat. xp is the better performer with just 2 gigs of memory versus 4 to 8 gigs or more to use vista or w7. why is so much memory needed for vista or w7 because its tons of godless garbage running in the back ground or something. tracking cookies or some thing what ever ms is doing in the back ground. or 50 screens in screen or what ever. im sure i dont need it what ever it is.. i run my games and record them and use my desk top just fine with 32bit xp and just 2 gigs of memory.

I'll politely say you have a lot to learn about memory usage and memory management before you can accurately compare Windows 7 and XP. Please don't pass judgement on a product you haven't used, haven't tried, and don't understand. Yes, that makes me sound like an ass, but it is for everyone's benefit.

If you do take the time to read about Vista/Windows 7 memory management features, Superfetch, etc, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

There's no point in putting memory in your system and then trying to use as little as possible. Do you buy a car with a ton of horsepower, and then try to use as little as possible? If your memory is being wasted, I'll agree, but if it is using your system memory more effectively, to boost performance, especially under load...how is that a bad thing?

In all seriousness, do yourself a favor and and read up on Windows 7, and then download the 90 day trial of Enterprise RTM before you decide to bash it.

 

[ezeht]

ya ive already pre ordered 2 copies of w7 hp upgrade. 1 for my bud and 1 for me. after i install it a few times. i say that because im sure i will learn stuff. or mess up something and have to reinstall it.. but after im happy with it on my system. i will install it on my buds system i built for him.

he is just a user. worked in a office all his life with a it department. the man knows nothing about installing programs or security he cant even run a virus scan. so i maintain his system for him. but he looks out for me. and bought me this w7 for 50 bucks.. thats another thing. w7 upgrade was only 50 bucks at newegg so i think i would have been stupid not to jump on it. 50 bucks seems like a good deal to me. tho id rather have the full retail.

i read even with xp. full retail version installs had way less problems.i read its better to buy the xp with what sp pack you want to. its less problems than if you later upgrade. i hope not to have many problems with w7 install. and i hope it will not be to many problems if i mess up and have to reinstall it.. i dont care if i have to install my xp sp3 first and then w7. but i do not to re install to get it right if need be.. or if i learn how to do a more lean install and cant turn off stuff after the os has been installed etc.

i will figure it out.. but i do think i will use my oem xp sp3 to upgrade to w7 and save my key for my retail xp sp2 version. and again being im afraid of sp3 xp to start with so..

bench marking is a funny thing too. same machine and tests run 50 times and they are all different and can run real high or real low. and depends on what ms might be doing in the back ground. right circumstances and older system and hardware can out bench a said more new or better system.. the next tests the newer system wins. then if beaching games. it can depend on the game and type and if you are using ati or nvidia. some games like nvidia more others like ati more and bench tests seem to be fudged when and how they are wanted too.

and i do not claim to be an expert at anything. but i do have gobs of common sense. 2 gigs of memory is less than 4 to 8 gigs. and read. you might as well not bother with vista or w7 with anything lower than 4 gigs and if you really want smooth etc you want 8 gigs. well no matter how its cut or word it. 4 to 8 gigs is a lot more resources than is 2 gigs. but im sure it can or will be explained why i need 8 gigs and all the extra stuff running that uses or needs it..

ha ha.. im more less picking. but. it seems i need a whole hell of a lot more system and other hard ware just to use vista or w7. infact dont you have to run a program to see what on your system will or will not work with vista or w7. i might still have to spend more money just to use this w7. everything on my 98 system worked on my xp system. so its not just memory. and for what a bunch of glorified extra junk stuff i might not ever see use or know about or ever need or use. again. i just need this as a simple gaming rig with security and a few recording or video edit programs. nasa and space men can have all the extra stuff.. and its what maybe 3 games after 2 years of dx10 that use dx10.. dx10 is really the only thing im buying a vista based os for the ability to use dx10. i can flat out care less about any and everything else about vista or w7.

if dx10 worked on xp i would not spend another dime on ms. i only use ms for gaming. mac is a better general computer. and if not for gaming i would have no use for a computer at all.. i got past friends and chatting with hot asian gals on the net long ago. i dont use consoles. i dont type in these forums unless i have a problem. and i do no office stuff and i do not install messengers none of it.. just my jet audio player and add my music library.. no player sounds as good as jet so..

 

[sup3rsprt]

You're right, which is why those sites are even MORE important, because they use actual games, and not synthetic testing, such as 3DMark.

Synthetic benchmark or not, if it's faster in Windows XP, there's a reason. And in just about every case where 3dmark is faster, so are games. It's partly the reason 3dmark was designed and sold.

Of course I benchmark games too and 99% of them run better in Windows XP. On ALL of my computers, single-core, dual-core, or otherwise. Even many console emulators perform better in XP 64-bit than Windows 7. What else is left to prove?

 

[ezeht]

the thing is. im not trying to bash it. and ive already bought it. if anything im playing devils advocate and trying to learn. and no i do not see any of you folks as bad or pushing w7. you have your opinions and experiences.. im just trying to pick all of your brains is all..

im sorry if i seem like im bashing w7 im not. but as said i do read a lot. and i prefer the common mans options versus a home or fan boy site.. naturally a home or fan boy site will push hype lies and garbage and just hope to sell. they can care less about us the user or common man.. and if ms did not have its head up its butt with vista. well. it would have been better and sold more too maybe.. but only because of poor sales and companies like dell refused to push vista on folks. did ms try and do better with w7 period. so.

im just talking and trying to learn. and im already on the hook for w7 and my 4 gig mem kit on the way so. its all good. im not trying to give you folks a hard time. im sorry im not elegant either.. ha ha

ha ha 1 more thing. i have friends that own or run businesses and spent thousands of bucks to upgrade hard ware and then buy and have vista installed and had to pay 3rd party companies to do so and maintain vista. it was a night mare. nothing but problems and cost ran to high. they took a loss and dropped vista and went back to xp. so. i dont have to make any of this up. again i do read a lot and have friends some like it vista but most all hate it for the most part is just the truth.. but most say w7 is a lot better and more like xp. or w7 is to vista what xp was to me or 2000 what ever it was. people hated me or 2000 but loved xp.